ORDER : P. DEVADASS, J. As these petitions have common factual matrix and common grounds have been taken, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd is owned by the State Government. It is running hotels under the name and style of 'Hotel Tamil Nadu' in several places. One of it is functioning in Hogenakkal in Dharmapuri District. It employs several categories of employees. Certain workmen, who were employed for several years, have sought for regularisation of their services. It was refused by the Management. They have petitioned the Inspector of Labour, krishnagiri, the Competent Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, seeking a direction to the Management under Section 3 of the said Act to make them permanent. 3. After hearing the Management and the Labour and perusing the evidence placed before him, on 14.7.2011, the Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri, directed the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd to make them permanent. 4. Aggrieved, the Management filed writ petitions assailing the directions of the Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri. On 18.7.2014, the Writ Court upheld the order of the Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri. The Management preferred Writ Appeals. On 9.12.2014, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeals. 5. Now, the Management filed Review Applications to review the said appellate judgment. As there is a delay of 150 days in filing the Review Applications, the Management filed these petitions under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. 6. The details of the Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals filed by the Management, the workmen are as under:- 7. According to the learned counsel for the Management, the Management intends to seek review of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 9.12.2014, however, in filing the review applications, certain delay has occurred and reasons for the same has been stated, thus, an opportunity may be given to the Management by condoning the delay. S. No. WP No. Workmen Post WA No. 1. 28086/2011 C.Athirshtaboopathy Bar Salesman 1512/2014 2. 28087/2011 A.Raja Kitchen Cleaner 1513/2014 3. 28088/2011 M.Ellappan Bill Clerk & Waiter 1514/2014 4. 28089/2011 K.Govindaraj Store Keeper 1515/2014 5. 28090/2011 S.Mohan Room Boy 1516/2014 6. 28091/2011 M.Periyanayagam Room Boy 1517/2014 7. 28092/2011 P.Sridhar Room Boy 1518/2014 8. 28093/2011 M.Muniyappan Bill Clerk 1519/2014 9. S. No. WP No. Workmen Post WA No. 1. 28086/2011 C.Athirshtaboopathy Bar Salesman 1512/2014 2. 28087/2011 A.Raja Kitchen Cleaner 1513/2014 3. 28088/2011 M.Ellappan Bill Clerk & Waiter 1514/2014 4. 28089/2011 K.Govindaraj Store Keeper 1515/2014 5. 28090/2011 S.Mohan Room Boy 1516/2014 6. 28091/2011 M.Periyanayagam Room Boy 1517/2014 7. 28092/2011 P.Sridhar Room Boy 1518/2014 8. 28093/2011 M.Muniyappan Bill Clerk 1519/2014 9. 28094/2011 C.Bakkiyaraj Bill Clerk 1520/2014 10. 28095/2011 R.Madhu Room Boy 1521/2014 11. 28096/2011 K.S.Madhaiyan Bill Clerk 1522/2014 8. According to the learned counsel for workmen, it is a ploy of the Management to deny them employment on permanent basis. The reasons for delay stated is invented and made for the occasion. 9. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments in the affidavits and other connected materials on record. 10. These workmen have joined the said State owned Corporation several years ago. Yet their services were not regularised. The Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri on 14.7.2011 directed the Management to regularise their services. On 18.7.2014, the Writ Court, affirmed the said order and that was also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court as early as on 9.12.2014. The workmen have also filed contempt petitions. Yet the directions of the Statutory Authority remains as it is in spite of Court orders. 11. In support of the delay condonation petitions Selvi Kavitha Ramu, General Manager of the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd filed similar affidavits in each Review Application setting out the reasons for the delay. In paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of her affidavit, she has stated as under:- “2. The petitioner had filed Writ Appeal Nos.1512 to 1522 of 2014 challenging the order of the Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.28086 to 28096 of 2011 directing regularisation of the services of the respondent casual workman in the services of the petitioner Corporation. The Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner Corporation was dismissed on 9.12.2014. The copy of the order was received by the petitioner in January 2015 and it has obtained legal opinion in February 2015. During May, 2015, the petitioner had directed its counsel to file a Review Application of the order dated 9.12.2014. However, the order along with other appeal papers got misplaced and hence the Review Petition was filed by the counsel only on 22nd June, 2015. This has resulted in delay in filing the Review Petition. 3. During May, 2015, the petitioner had directed its counsel to file a Review Application of the order dated 9.12.2014. However, the order along with other appeal papers got misplaced and hence the Review Petition was filed by the counsel only on 22nd June, 2015. This has resulted in delay in filing the Review Petition. 3. The counsel for the respondent workman has sent a contempt notice and the petitioner has also replied that it has filed a Review Petition.” 12. As stated already, the Division Bench delivered its judgment as early as on 9.12.2014, now the Management says that it had obtained a copy of the judgment in January 2015, since the appeal papers got misplaced there is delay in filing the Review Applications. The workmen having waited so long have now filed contempt petitions. Thus, to avoid implementation of the orders of the Statutory Authority, which was issued on 14.7.2011, the Management filed these petitions. They are intended to procrastinate the matter. They are intended to delay the matter. To do so, it seeks the indulgence of the Court. The delay has not been properly explained. The reason stated is quite unacceptable. This kind of attitude is uncalled for from a State owned Corporation, which wishes to avoid service benefits available to workmen under a Labour Legislation. It is not a fit case to show any indulgence. 13. In the circumstances, these petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.