ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No. 9362 of 2017 1. The present Interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 14 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this Interlocutory Application especially in paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 thereof, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring this Appeal. We therefore, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. This Interlocutory Application is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 478 of 2017 1. By consent of the learned counsels for both the sides, this Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, whose writ petition being W.P.(L) No.5493 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 17th August, 2016 whereby, an award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad in Reference No. 50 of 2002 dated 1st February, 2011 was upheld and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is an original petitioner, who has preferred W.P.(L)No. 5493 of 2012 challenging the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad in Reference No. 50 of 2002, award dated 1st February, 2011. This writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that this appellant was appointed on 11th February, 1975 on the post of Messenger, on purely temporary basis with the respondent bank and within a period of six months on 04.08.1975 his services were terminated. He has worked in the month of February, April, May, June and July, but, he has not completed total 240 days at all. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad in Reference No. 50 of 2002 as well as by the learned Single Judge. 4. Looking to the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad in Reference No. 50 of 2002, it appears that there is no evidence with this appellant that he has worked for more than 240 days. 4. Looking to the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad in Reference No. 50 of 2002, it appears that there is no evidence with this appellant that he has worked for more than 240 days. Moreover, he was appointed purely on temporary basis on 11th February, 1975 and his services have been terminated on 04.08.1975 because he was continuously absent, from the services. Looking to the working days of the respondent bank and the actual work done by this appellant, it appears that there is lot of absenteeism of this appellant and hence, his services have been terminated within six months from the date of his appointment. 5. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad while deciding Reference No. 50 of 2002 vide award dated 1st February, 2011 and these aspects of the matter have also been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(L) No. 5493 of 2012 vide judgment and order 17th August, 2016. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.