Sufficient cause for delay must be specifically explained; bare inadvertence is not enough to excuse a time-barred departmental appeal.

Delay in filing a departmental appeal can be condoned only on proof of sufficient cause, and a bare plea of inadvertence is not enough, even for a Government department. The Court held that the applicant must explain where the delay occurred and why the decision to appeal was not taken in time; a general assertion of inadvertent delay does not satisfy the test. Pendency of another reference involving similar issues did not by itself justify condonation. The writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's refusal to condone the 133-day delay remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone a delay of 133 days in filing the departmental appeal on the ground that only inadvertent delay was shown.

Analysis: Condonation of delay requires a sufficient cause to be disclosed, even where the applicant is a Government department. A mere assertion that the delay occurred inadvertently, without explaining where the delay occurred in taking the decision to appeal, does not amount to sufficient cause. The pendency of another reference involving similar questions does not by itself justify condonation of delay in a time-barred appeal.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone the delay was upheld and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay can be condoned only on showing sufficient cause, and a bare plea of inadvertence, without a satisfactory explanation for the period of delay, is insufficient even for a Government department.

---