JUDGMENT : Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent - Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) and learned counsel for the second respondent-workman and perused the records. 2. The Appellant - Transport Corporation is on Appeal. This Writ Appeal is arising out of the order dated 18.09.2009 made in WP.No.4195 of 2006, wherein and where under, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant - Transport Corporation, seeking approval for dismissal of the second respondent from service. 3. From the facts made available herein, it is seen that the second respondent was appointed as a Helper on daily wages on 16.05.1994 in the appellant Transport Corporation and he was dismissed from service, by an order dated 14.01.2004, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 10.01.2003 and caused dislocation of normal work. Challenging the same, an Industrial Dispute was raised before the first respondent. Pending the Industrial Dispute, the Appellant has filed a petition in Approval Petition No.43 of 2004 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the first respondent, seeking approval for the dismissal of the second respondent from service. The said petition was dismissed on 01.08.2005. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred W.P.No.4195 of 2006, which was dismissed, vide order dated 18.09.2009. Therefore, the Appellant - Transport Corporation is before this Court with the present Writ Appeal. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the first respondent-Joint Commissioner of Labour would reveal that the first respondent, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd, reported in AIR 1978 (SC) 1004 , has rejected the approval petition filed by the Appellant. While doing so, the first respondent has held that the appellant had not come to a bona fide conclusion that the second respondent was guilty and therefore, the dismissal of the second respondent amounts to unfair labour practise and was intended to victimise the second respondent for the reasons best known to the Appellant. Further, the Appellant had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 33(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding the payment of one month's wages to the second respondent at the time of his dismissal. 5. Further, the Appellant had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 33(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding the payment of one month's wages to the second respondent at the time of his dismissal. 5. In the order impugned herein, after detailed analysis, the learned Single Judge has also upheld the decision taken by the first respondent, by stating that the first respondent has dealt with the matter in detail point by point following the guidelines enunciated by the Supreme Court in Lalla Ram's case (cited supra), giving cogent reasons and refused to accord approval for dismissal of the second respondent, which was well founded and perfectly justified. 6. Regarding the act of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the second respondent, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the second respondent was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 10.01.2003 to 14.01.2004, i.e., nearly one year and therefore, the first respondent as well as the learned Single Judge ought to have approved the order dismissing the second respondent from service, whereas, according to the learned counsel for the second respondent, he absented from duty from 10.01.2003 to 11.03.2003 for his medical illness and thereafter, he was not permitted to join duty and continue his work. We find merit and acceptance in the contention so raised on the side of the second respondent, in view of the discussions made in the orders passed by the first respondent and the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 7. Insofar as the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, the first respondent and the learned Single Judge have dealt with it in detail and have decided the same against the appellant, which, in our opinion, does not require any interference by this Court. 8. Quite apart from that, the Appellant has come to this Court by way of the present writ appeal with a delay of more than six years, since the first respondent has rejected the Approval Petition on 01.08.2005 and the learned Single Judge has also confirmed the same on 18.09.2009 itself. Such casual approach of the Appellant - Transport Corporation, especially, in the service matter, cannot be entertained by this Court at this length of time. 9. Such casual approach of the Appellant - Transport Corporation, especially, in the service matter, cannot be entertained by this Court at this length of time. 9. Therefore, looking at from any angle, the orders passed by the first respondent as well as the learned Single Judge, declining to grant approval for dismissal of the second respondent from service, need not be interfered with by this Court and the same are hereby confirmed. 10. Resultantly, the writ appeal SR and the petition seeking delay condonation are dismissed. No costs.