Delay condonation rejected for vague explanation and laches; appeal dismissed after failure to justify filing delay.

A 29-day delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation was vague, unsupported and attributed to an unnamed official, despite the appeal having been signed and verified by the General Manager himself. The tribunal treated the explanation as showing clear laches and distinguished the cited precedents on their facts. Applying the principle that a party seeking discretionary relief must come with clean hands, it dismissed the condonation application and, as a consequence, dismissed the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was found to be vague and unsupported, as the appeal had been signed and verified by the General Manager himself, yet no proper explanation was given by him for the delay. The attribution of the delay to an unnamed official was treated as insufficient, and the explanation was held to disclose clear laches. The precedents relied on by the appellant were distinguished on facts, and the principle that a party seeking discretionary relief must come with clean hands was applied.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the condonation application was dismissed; consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

---