JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellants on the question of delay of 22 days in filing the present special appeal and in view of the reasons given in the application under Section 5 Limitation Act supported by the affidavit, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented because of sufficient cause in preferring the appeal, therefore, the delay of 2 days is condoned. 2. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellants, the matter has been heard on merits. 3. A dispute was raised by the workman and upon the same, the learned Labour. Court by its award dated 30.1.2003 held the workman entitled for reinstatement with 35% back wages from the date of reference. 4. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the Labour Court, the respondent-employee preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1168/2005 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by its order dated 5.9.2008. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned single judge observed that the workman continued in service for more than 20 years. It is also submitted that the appellants were directed to consider the case of the workman for regularisation as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (2006) 4 SCC 1 . According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the respondent-workman was not entitled to any relief. 6. After going through the older impugned, we are of the considered view that the learned Single judge has directed the appellants to consider the case of the workman for regularisation in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and the employer should have done it at its own after is Uma Devi's judgment and nothing more has been done by the learned so go judge by the impugned order 5.9.2008. 7. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.Special appeal dismissed. *******