JUDGMENT 1. This special appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.10.2002 is barred by limitation of 125 days. The appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by the affidavit of Shri B.D. Jajpura, Accountant, Rajasthan Agricultural Univer- sity, Bikaner. It is averred that the certified copy of the judgment dated 23.10.2002 was delivered to the Officer Incharge on 24.12.2002. An application for supplying the copy was made on 16.11.2002 and the same was delivered on 20.12.2002. It is also averred that Mr. Madhukar Gupta I.A.S. & Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner was holding the charge of Vice Chancellor. The Officer Incharge Shri Phool Singh was permitted to undertake the research work by order dated 20.1.2003. The sanction was given by the Vice Chancellor on 19.3.2003. A perusal of the affidavit only indicates some dates and events. There is lack of continuity. Be that as it may, there is absolutely no indication as to how the papers remained pending either with the Vice Chancellor or any other officer for an appropriate direction in the matter of filing special appeal. Thus, we are of the view that there existed no sufficient reason which escaped the appellant from filing the special appeal within statutory limitation. 2. The Apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Ann reported in JT 1997 (8) SC 189 has held that the law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. In the instant case even if we take a liberal view no reason what worth the name has been given as to how the matter remained pending with the Vice Chancellor for appropriate direction in the matter of filing special appeal. In view of this, we do not find any justified reason to condone the delay. Even on the merit of the case, the Labour Court has found the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court also found that it is a case of unfair labour practice inasmuch as the person juniors to the respondent workman were detained. Even on the merit of the case, the Labour Court has found the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court also found that it is a case of unfair labour practice inasmuch as the person juniors to the respondent workman were detained. Inspite of that the Labour Court while directing the reinstatement has not granted back wages from the date of termination i.e. 31.12.91. For the entire period of more than 10 years he has been only paid Rs. 2,500/-. The respondent workman has not chosen to challenge that part of the order. The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. There are absolutely no justified reason to entertain such a belated special appeal. It is submitted by Mr. Basti Chand learned counsel that a Division Bench of this Court has struck down the provisions of the Rajasthan Regulation, Appointments to Public Service and rationalisation of Staff Act, 1999 and a special leave against the said judgment has been granted by the Apex Court. This fact has no relevance with the instant case. No such plea has either been taken before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. 3. Consequently, the special appeal is also rejected.Special appeal rejected. *******