1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 66 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO. 952 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2827 OF 2007 SHRI VIJAY R. MAYEKAR .. APPELLANT Vs. LUPIN LABORATORIES LTD. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. N. M. Ganguli for appellant Mr. S. S. Pathak i/b Haresh Mehta for respondents CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & K. K.TATED, JJ. DATE: 22/10/2008 P.C. . This notice of motion is taken out by the appellant praying that delay of 711 days in filing the appeal be condoned. The order impugned in the appeal is dated 7/12/05 whereby Writ Petition No. 2872 of 2005 was dismissed. In the affidavit in support of the motion it is stated that certified copy of the impugned order was applied for on 14/12/05 and the same was ready on 17/12/05, which was eventually collected by the appellant’s 2 advocate and by letter dated 4/1/06 it was forwarded to the appellant. It is further stated in the affidavit that letter dated 4/1/06 sent by appellant’s advocate was delivered to the appellant by the post office on 15/10/07. After receipt of the certified copy the advocate was contacted and the present appeal came to be filed on 18/12/07. We called upon learned counsel for the appellant to produce the envelop indicating that the certified copy was delivered to the appellant by the Post Office on 15/10/07. He stated that the appellant is unable to produce the same. In view of this, this explanation is not acceptable to us. In our opinion, the appellant has not made out sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. 2. It appears that the appellant was working as Administrative Assistant with the respondent. He was inter alia charged with misappropriation of the dues of nine employees. He was held guilty in domestic enquiry. His services were terminated vide order dated 26/7/91. He filed complaint alleging unfair labour practices eleven years after the termination i.e. on 26/11/01. 3. Labour Court decided against him. He carried a 3 revision to the Industrial Court. Industrial Court concurred with the Labour Court and decided against the appellant vide its order dated 9/3/05. Learned Single Judge concurred with the courts below. In the circumstances and considering the unexplained delay in filing the appeal, we dismiss the motion. Motion is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE