IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.3284 OF 2016(L-TER) BETWEEN:
MR. C. NARAYANAPPA S/O. K. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.3/5, CHOKKASANDRA NEAR VENKATESHWARA MIRROR WORKS T. DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-560 057. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
M/S. THE MANAGEMENT OF DINESH EXPORT REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR ADJACENT TO B-378 1ST STAGE, PEENYA INDUSLABOUR AREA PEENYA BENGALURU-560 058.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA AND SMT. KALAVATHI PRESENTLY AT NO.128, ‘KRISHIV NIVAS’ SHARADA COLONY MAIN ROAD BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE-560 079. ... RESPONDENTS ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 11131/2012 DATED 21/08/2012.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard.
2. The unsuccessful petitioner before the Hon’ble Single Judge has presented this belated appeal challenging order dated 21.08.2012 passed in W.P.No.11131/2012.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status before the Hon’ble Single Judge.
4. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging order dated 19.3.2011 in I.D.No.55/98 on the premise that he had not tendered resignation. The Hon’ble Single Judge has recorded that the Labour Court on proper appreciation of the entire evidence has dismissed petitioner’s claim and in such circumstances, no interference was warranted.
5. This appeal is presented with a delay of 1415 days. We have carefully considered the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay. The learned advocate for the appellant argues that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice and he was undergoing Ayurvedic treatment and therefore, he was unable to present this appeal in time.
6. The affidavit shows that the petitioner was under treatment between 15.10.2013 to 15.4.2014. Except this period, no other explanation is forthcoming for the delay. However, this appeal is presented on 05.08.2016. Hence the cause shown for delay in filing this appeal is not satisfactory.
7. Resultantly, the application for delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also rejected.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.