IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4067 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (LODG) NO. 698 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2002 Mumbai Labour Union .....Appellant/Orig.Resp no.1 V/S. M/s.Sudarshan Steel Mfg.Co. ....Respondents/Orig.Petitioner ========== Ms.Neeta Karnik, adv.for appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,,JJ. DATED : 18TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant in the motion seeking condonation of delay. 2. We were taken through the affidavit to impress upon us that the period of four years was lost in contacting the workers. No material facts and/or particulars in this behalf are disclosed. It is not disclosed as to where the workers were residing. How they were contacted. What type of steps were taken to contact them. The entire affidavit is vague and sketchy without any material in support of the prayer for condonation of delay. No sufficient case is made out for grant of the Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay. In the result, motion is rejected with no order as to costs. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J) (V.C.DAGA,J.)