Condonation of delay denied where a prolonged lapse was unexplained and pursuit of Settlement Commission relief did not justify it.

An appeal filed after an inordinate delay of 6324 days from communication of the impugned order and 4499 days from the restoration order was not saved by the explanation offered. The appellant relied on its earlier withdrawal of proceedings to pursue remedies before the Settlement Commission and the later failure to obtain relief there, but this was found to be no satisfactory cause for the prolonged lapse. The shift between fora was also viewed as inconsistent with judicial propriety. Delay was therefore not condoned and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 6324 days from communication of the impugned order and 4499 days from the order of restoration. No satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay. The only explanation was the earlier withdrawal of proceedings to pursue remedies before the Settlement Commission and the later failure to secure relief there, which was held not to justify the prolonged lapse. The switch between jurisdictions was found inconsistent with judicial propriety.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed.

---