Judgment :- P. Jyothimani, J. M.P.NO.1 of 2007: This petition is filed by the Corporation of Chennai for condonation of delay of 958 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 012. 2003 in W.P.No.21573 of 2000. 2. The first respondent has filed W.P.no.21573 of 2000 for mandamus to direct the appellant to regularise the services of workers of its Union, whose names found place in the affidavit as per G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 27.05.1999, from their original date of appointment with parity in pay and other benefits with regular employees and other consequential benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge on 012. 2003, with direction to the appellant to consider the names of the members of the first respondent Union for their permanent absorption, further observing that while doing so, the artificial break may be ignored. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the present petition to condone delay that in spite of the direction given by the learned Judge, it was not complied with and there was an order of fine imposed against the appellant in a contempt application and it is also the case of the appellant Corporation that against the order in the contempt application, contempt appeal has been preferred. It is thereafter, the present appeal sought to be filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 012. 2003. The reason given for condoning the delay is that when admittedly the copy of the order was received even on 112. 2003, letters were written to each and every Zone, where the Members of the respondent Union were engaged as contract labours and in getting the particulars, there is delay of 958 days. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant as also D. Nagasaila, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Union. 5. When admittedly the order copy was received by the petitioner as early as on 112. 2003, no acceptable reason is given for filing the appeal in January, 2007. The reason given for the delay that particulars are gathered in respect of the employees of the first respondent Union is absolutely not relevant for filing the appeal at all. 5. When admittedly the order copy was received by the petitioner as early as on 112. 2003, no acceptable reason is given for filing the appeal in January, 2007. The reason given for the delay that particulars are gathered in respect of the employees of the first respondent Union is absolutely not relevant for filing the appeal at all. It is seen that even in the order in the writ petition, the learned single Judge has directed the appellant to consider the case of the Members of the first respondent Union as per the Government Order. In those circumstance, we do not see any reason for condoning such an exorbitant delay, for which no acceptable reason is given. In view of the same, this petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the delay condonation petition, the Writ Appeal SR.No.66423 of 2006, is rejected.