ORDER 1. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner employee has challenged the dismissal order dated 30th November, 2004 (Annexure P.4), the order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the Labour Court (Annexure P.7) and the order dated 14.2.2011 (Annexure P.ll) passed by the Industrial Court. 2. In brief, the petitioner was working as labourer in the respondent establishment and was issued a charge sheet on the allegation of the unauthorised absence. After receiving the reply of the petitioner, the domestic enquiry was conducted in which the charge was held to be proved and the dismissal order dated 30.11.2004 was passed. The challenge to the said dismissal order was rejected by the Labour Court by order dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P. 7) The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court after a delay of 232 days, but failed to furnish satisfactory reason for the delay, consequently, the Industrial Court by order dated 14.2.2011 rejected the application for condondation of delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by time. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court has committed an error in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. He further submits that the orders impugned are unsustainable. 4. Learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned orders and submitted that the application for condonation of delay has lightly been rejected since no explanation for the delay was furnished by the petitioner. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for pm1ies and perused the record. 6. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Industrial Court was undisputedly barred by 332 days. The Industrial Court has found that the petitioner failed to furnish any cogent and satisfactory explanation for the delay. On the perusal of the application under section :) of the Limitation Act (Annexure P.9), it is noticed that the said application was filed by the petitioner in a casual manner without mentioning the necessary particulars. The so called explanation furnished in the application was as under:- ^^;g fd] vihykFkhZ vkns’k fnukad 21-8-2009 tks fd vihykFkhZ dk fnukad 28-08-09 dks izkIr gqbZ FkhA blh chp vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk dk LokLFk [kjkc gksus ls ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds fo:} ekuuh; U;k;k;y ds le{k vihy djus dk fuosnu djus ds foyac gks x;kA** 7. The so called explanation furnished in the application was as under:- ^^;g fd] vihykFkhZ vkns’k fnukad 21-8-2009 tks fd vihykFkhZ dk fnukad 28-08-09 dks izkIr gqbZ FkhA blh chp vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk dk LokLFk [kjkc gksus ls ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds fo:} ekuuh; U;k;k;y ds le{k vihy djus dk fuosnu djus ds foyac gks x;kA** 7. No medical documents were enclosed along with the application to substantiate the said ground nor any such documents have been filed by the petitioner before this Court with the Writ Petition. Even in the absence of the requisite pleading. the Industrial court has given the benefit of 100 days on account of the alleged illness of the counsel. but inspite of that the petitioner failed to explain the delay for the remaining period. Before this court. also. nothing has been pointed out which could explain the long delay in filing the appeal. 8. Even otherwise, the dismissal order indicates that the petitioner was habitual of unauthorised absence which is apparent from the following track record noted in the dismissal order:- o”kZ vukf/kd`r vuqifLFkfr 1995 72 fnu 1996 89 fnu 1997 37 fnu 1998 82 fnu 1999 110 fnu 2000 94 fnu 2001 174 fnu 2002 90 fnu 9. lt has also been noted in the dismissal order that the petitioner had remained absent during the above period without any intimation. The Labour Court, by order dated 2 1.8.2009 has upheld the dismissal by recording that in the domestic enquiry the charges were admitted by the petitioner and that she had not filed any documentary or oral evidence in support of the plea taken in defence. The order of dismissal was passed after conducting the regular enquiry and giving full opportunity of hearing. 10. Normally white dealing with the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, a liberal approach is adopted. but considering the peculiar facts of this case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the opinion that no ground is made out for exercising the limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Umesh Gajankush for petitioner: G.S. Patvardhan for respondent. .