Condonation of delay requires a full, specific explanation; later change in law alone does not justify belated appeal filing.

A long delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned merely because a later Supreme Court decision changed the legal position; the applicant must give a satisfactory and specific explanation for the entire period of delay. Here, the explanation was found deficient, especially for the period after the later decision, and the Tribunal also noted that the earlier appellate order had been accepted and the stake involved was small. In the absence of any infirmity in the Tribunal's exercise of discretion, writ interference was not warranted, and the refusal to condone delay was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the long delay in filing the appeal and whether the writ petitions warranted interference.

Analysis: The delay was substantial and the explanation was found wanting, particularly because no satisfactory reason was shown for the period after the later Supreme Court decision which altered the legal position. The Tribunal also took into account that the earlier appellate order had been accepted and that the stake involved was small. In the absence of a proper explanation of delay, and with no infirmity shown in the Tribunal's exercise of discretion, interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted.

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

Final Conclusion: The petitions were dismissed, leaving the Tribunal's rejection of the condonation application undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A long delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned merely because the legal position later changed unless the applicant shows a satisfactory and specific explanation for the entire period of delay.

---