Judgment :- (Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent against the order of the learned Judge Mr. Justice A. Kulasekaran, dated 05.07.2002 made in WP.No.13387 of 1995.) P. Sathasivam, J. WAMP.No.1383 of 2006: This is a petition to condone the delay of 548 days in filing the writ appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.07.2002 made in Writ Petition No.13387 of 1995. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above petition it is stated that the petitioner/appellant applied for copy of the order dated 05.07.2002 on 09.07.2002. It further shows that the copy was made ready on 20.12.2002; however, the same was received by the petitioner on 06.02.2003. It is explained in para 3 of the affidavit that after receipt of the order copy, the petitioner sought legal opinion from the Legal Cell of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and after getting further order from the Headquarters of the Board, the present writ appeal was filed on 16.07.2004 with a delay of 548 days. The deponent of the affidavit has also stated that due to the administrative reasons, such as getting legal opinion, preparation of papers, etc., the delay has occasioned. 3. Though the copy of the order was made ready on 20.12.2002, there is no proper explanation for not getting the same immediately, and it was received by the petitioner only on 06.02.2003. Likewise, except stating that time was taken for getting legal opinion and for approval from the Headquarters of the Board, there is no proper explanation by the person concerned for the time taken till 16.07.2004. We are not impressed with the reasons stated in para 3 of the affidavit for the delay of 548 days. 4. Apart from this, even on merits, it is seen that the second respondent was appointed as a Sweeper in the Office of the appellant on 01.03.1989 under Ex.M.1. The Labour Court, after finding that he had completed 240 days in one year, the termination amount of retrenchment contemplated under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, accepted his case and passed an order in favour of the workman and ordered retrenchment. Questioning the said order, the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Namakkal and the Superintending Engineer, Metturdam Distribution Circle, Mettrumdam filed the writ petition. Questioning the said order, the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Namakkal and the Superintending Engineer, Metturdam Distribution Circle, Mettrumdam filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge, after finding that the mandatory provisions have not been followed and the conclusion of the Labour Court is acceptable, dismissed the said writ petition. As observed earlier, even on merits we are of the view that the appellant has not made out a case for condoning the delay of 548 days in preferring the above appeal; hence, we are not inclined to condone the huge delay and this petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the delay condonation petition, WASR.No.77390 of 2004 is rejected.