Sufficient cause for delay requires a full explanation of each day's lapse; casual oversight will not justify condonation.

A 54-day delay in filing an appeal was held not to be supported by sufficient cause where the stated factory lay-off had ended well before the appeal was filed, labour problems were not linked to the entire period of delay, and the officer's claimed inadvertence showed only a casual approach. The explanation did not account for each day's delay, and the affidavit itself suggested the order was merely forgotten until later discovered while cleaning the office. On those facts, condonation was refused and the appeal was treated as barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal should be condoned on the ground of factory lay-off, labour problems and alleged inadvertence of the works manager.

Analysis: The explanation showed that the lay-off had ended by the last week of June 1999, yet no satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay that continued until the appeal was filed in August 1999. The affidavit also admitted that the concerned officer had forgotten the order and only noticed it while cleaning his office. The reasons disclosed a casual approach and did not account for each day's delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not supported by sufficient cause and was not condoned. The appeal was consequently held to be barred by limitation.

---