THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No. 22110 of 2000 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) In this writ petition, the department seeks to assail the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A. No.510 of 1995 and in M.A. No.490 of 1998 in R.A.(SR) No. 1695/98 in O.A No.510 of 1995, dated 18.8.97 and 1.2.2000, respectively. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-workman was engaged as Casual labourer at Coaxial Maintenance Station, Jaggayyapet, Kodad. While so, the department has disengaged the services of the respondent from 1.2.1988. Assailing the order of removal, the respondent approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada and it is stated that in pursuance of the conciliation proceedings, the respondent was re-engaged. However, when the department did not treat the period of retrenchment from 1.2.1988 to 31.1.1991 as service for the purpose of seniority, the respondent filed the aforesaid O.A. before the Tribunal seeking to declare the retrenchment period as service for seniority and other service benefits. The Tribunal, while taking into account the fact that the department has absorbed the respondent in pursuance of the conciliation proceedings held before the Assistant Commissioner, disposed of the said O.A. through impugned order dated 18.8.1997 with a direction to the department to fix his seniority on the basis of his initial engagement from 1.10.1986 and to grant all consequential benefits like conferment of temporary status and regularisation of service, as envisaged under the relevant rules. The Tribunal also held that the respondent would not be entitled for any wages for the period during which he was disengaged from service. Thereafter, the department filed an application seeking to review the order dated 18.8.1997 passed in the O.A. However, as there was a delay of 268 days in filing the review application, the department filed M.A. No. 490 of 1998 seeking to condone the said delay. The Tribunal, through order dated 1.2.2000 while refusing to condone the delay, dismissed the said application. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. On a perusal of the impugned orders, it is seen that the main O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal on 18.8.1997 and the department filed the review application seeking to review the said order with a delay of nearly 268 days. The department except stating that due to administrative reasons, it could not file the application for reviewing the order in time, did not offer any plausible explanation for filing the review so belatedly. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay. Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders of the Tribunal warranting interference. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 27th September, 2010 _________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY pnb