Judgment :- M.Y. EQBAL, C.J. and T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. By this petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioners to condone the delay of 929 days in representing the writ appeals. 2. It appears that the petitioners filed the writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 953, 954 and 956 of 2006, challenging the orders passed by the second respondent dated 1.3.2005 terminating the petitioners from service and for a direction upon the respondents to, reinstate the petitioners with all attendant service benefits. 3. Before the learned single Judge, the second respondent raised an objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petitions by stating that the second respondent is not a “ State ” , within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and further stated that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy under the . The learned Judge heard the writ petitions and by a common order dated 15.2.2007, sustained the objections raised by the second respondent and held that as the petitioners have effective alternative remedy under the Labour Legislation, the writ petitions are not maintainable and dismissed the same giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum. The operative portion of the judgment and order reads as hereunder: “ 9. The fact that the second respondent is a company registered under , is not in dispute. It is not even the case of the petitioners that the Government has got any control over the second respondent, inasmuch as the second respondent is a private company. In view of the above said admitted position that the second respondent is not “ state ” , there is absolutely no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the Hon‘ble Apex Court has laid down the dictum to find out as to whether there was an effective control of the Government or there is any public element involved, holding that there should be an effective administrative, functional and financial control of the Government for the purpose of making an organisation as a “ State ” , as laid down in Pradeed Kumar Biswas and Others v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others 2002 (2) CTC 474. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there is absolutely no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the writ petitions are not maintainable. 10. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent that it is not as if the petitioners are not having any remedy available. A reference to the entire communication show that they have been asking for better compensation. If that be so certainly the remedy available to the employees is under the. When an effective and alternative remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked, which has been an established law as it has been approved in the latest judgment of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in A.P. Foods v. S. Samuel and Others (2006) 5 SCC 469 , holding “ 6. In a catena of decisions it has been held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. ” 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, as I have stated earlier, there is an effective alternative remedy available under the labour legislation, as it is stated by the second respondent in the counter affidavit. Hence, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. However, with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed. ” 4. It appears that on receipt of the certified copy of the order in the writ petitions, Memorandum of Appeals were presented before the Registry of this Court on 2.4.2007. It further appears that along with the memorandum of grounds, the typed set of papers were not filed and were subsequently filed on 13.10.2009. In the meantime, the petitioners are stated to have approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner for conciliation in order to raise an Industrial Dispute. The Conciliation proceedings ended in failure and the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner submitted his ‘ failure report ‘ to the Government of India. The Government of India by proceedings dated 24.9.2007, declined to refer the dispute for adjudication under the . From the facts placed before this Court, it is seen that the petitioners did not pursue the matter further. 5. The Government of India by proceedings dated 24.9.2007, declined to refer the dispute for adjudication under the . From the facts placed before this Court, it is seen that the petitioners did not pursue the matter further. 5. Nearly after two years, the petitioners appear to have filed the typed set of papers on 30.10.2009 and thereafter on 5.11.2009, the present petitions have been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 929 days in representation. These petitions are supported by affidavits sworn to by the petitioners dated 2.11.2009. In the affidavits filed in support of the petitions, the petitioners have narrated about the facts of the case, which ultimately culminated in the order of ‘ refusal to refer ‘ passed by the Government of India on 24.9.2007. In paragraph No. 8, the petitioners have stated as follows: “ 8. Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Hon‘ble Court once again and in the meantime there arose a delay of 929 days in representing the writ appeals. The petitioners submit that the delay thus arose in representing the writ appeals is neither willful nor wanton but due to the bona fide circumstances stated above and the same may be condoned by this Hon‘ble Court. If the delay is not condoned, the petitioners will be put to much hardship and irreparable loss. On the other hand, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. ” 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that since the Government of India declined to refer the dispute for adjudication, the petitioners are constrained to prosecute the Writ Appeal filed against the orders passed in the writ petitions, the delay is neither willful nor wanton and prayed for condonation of the delay. 7. The learnedcounsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the General Manager, Heavy Vehicle Factory v. T. Shadrak 1978 TNLJ 332 in support of his contentions and submitted that the delay is only in representation of the papers and not an Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and this Court should adopt a liberal approach and condone the delay. 8. Order 4 Rule 9 of the Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules deals with proceedings not instituted in convenient with the rules to be returned for amendment. 8. Order 4 Rule 9 of the Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules deals with proceedings not instituted in convenient with the rules to be returned for amendment. Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 9 states that every proceedings which is not instituted in conformity with the provisions of the Code, or of the rules or of any special enactment or of the rules applicable to it, shall be returned to the party or the practitioner concerned for amendment and representation. The proceedings shall be represented after compliance of the defects pointed out within ten days after the Notification of the defects unless the Registrar prescribes a shorter period. In terms of sub-rule 2 of Rule 9, every proceedings which is represented either for rectifying the defects or represented after the expiry of the time allowed should be accompanied by a petition for extension of time supported by an affidavit where necessary. Sub-Rule 3 states that the period prescribed for representation shall be computed afresh for each return pointing out fresh defects. In terms of sub-rule 4 of Rule 9, proceedings represented after a period of three months after the expiry of the time allowed will be posted before the Court marked “ not represented in time - for orders ” . It is under this sub-rule 4, the present Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed. 9. In the case of the General Manager, Heavy Vehicle Factory v. T. Shadrak (supra), this Court considered the correctness of an order passed by the Sub-Court at Kancheepuram, which condoned the delay in representation of the appeal papers. Against such order, a Revision was filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘ C.P.C ‘ ). This Court pointed out the difference between the condonation of delay in proper presentation of a particular proceedings pursuant to Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condonation of delay in representation of a particular proceedings under the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 C.P.C. This Court held that in the former case, there is a specific statute namely the Limitation Act which imposes an obligation on the Court to reject the proceedings if it is barred by limitation and that strictness is not available or applicable to a case of a delay in representation of the proceedings. Therefore, this Court held the provisions and considerations that are applicable to excusing the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, will not apply to the question of excusing the delay in representing the papers. Further, this Court held that in such proceedings notice to the respondents in the main case is not necessary and even if notice is given and objections are overruled and delay is condoned, the respondent in the main case cannot be said to be an aggrieved person as there is no judicial determination against him. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Y. Gusbar v. K. Subbarayan (1994) 1 MLJ (NOC) 1, held that if there is no undue delay in representing the papers, the delay can be compensated by awarding cost and accordingly, the Division Bench condoned the delay in representation by directing payment of cost of ` 1,000/-. 11. In Lakshminarayanan v. Vaigundana- mamani and Another 2000 (2) CTC 321, this Court (his Lordship Mr. P. SATHASIVAM, as he then was) while dealing with the case of condonation of delay of 581 days in representation of the papers, took note of the decision in N. Balakirshnan v. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222 : (1998) 7 SCC 123 : (1999) 1 MLJ 114, and held that the delay could be condoned by payment of cost as the main Petition was filed within the period of limitation and the petitioner therein had shown sufficient cause. 12. In the case on hand, the delay is 929 days. As noticed above, the petitioners have stated that they have pursued the matter before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner which ended in ‘ failure report ‘ and the Government of India also refused to refer the disputes. However, the appeals were presented in time. 13. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioners were working as Class III employees in the second respondent organisation and since it is alleged that the employees of the Chennai Branch of the second respondent were never put on notice of the voluntary retirement scheme, which was given to certain other employees in other regions, the petitioners could not challenge the orders of termination by initiating appropriate proceedings and that the main appeals were presented in time, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the delay in representation is condoned subject to payment of costs. 14. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay in representing the papers subject to the condition that each of the petitioner shall pay a sum of ` 500/-(Rupees five hundred only) to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority. On production of proof of payment of such amount, the delay in representation shall stand condoned and the appeals shall be registered and heard on merits.