JUDGMENT Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - The appeal is reported to be barred by 356 days. It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. We have perused the contents of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and are satisfied that the reasons assigned for delay in preferring the appeal are quite unsatisfactory and no plausible explanation has been furnished for inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the application stands dismissed. However, we have examined the case on merits also. 3. This intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 19.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20826/2013 whereby, the writ petition filed challenging the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court-I, Jaipur rejecting the application under Section 33(2)(b), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the award dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court-I, Jaipur whereby, the claim filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein late Gopal Singh was partly allowed, was dismissed. 4. Facts in brief as emerge from perusal of the record are that the workman-Gopal Singh, working as Driver with the appellant-Corporation, in a departmental enquiry, was imposed with the penalty of removal from services by the appellant-Corporation vide order dated 31.10.1998. In the application filed by the respondent-Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the learned Labour Court-I, vide its order dated 15.2.2011, held the enquiry to be unfair. The claim filed by the workman late Gopal Singh was partly allowed by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur vide its award dated 14.12.2011 on the premise that during pendency of the reference, the workman expired on 28.6.2007 and since the enquiry against him was already held to be unfair vide order dated 15.2.2011, no effective opportunity to rebut the evidence sought to be produced by the Corporation was available to the legal heirs of late workman. The order of termination dated 31.10.1998 was held to be bad in law and the workman was held entitled for back wages and other benefits from the date of termination of his services till the date of his death i.e. 28.6.2007. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed thereagainst. 5. The order of termination dated 31.10.1998 was held to be bad in law and the workman was held entitled for back wages and other benefits from the date of termination of his services till the date of his death i.e. 28.6.2007. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed thereagainst. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the orders impugned submitted that the learned Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge has erred in setting aside the order of termination of services of the late workman which was based on departmental enquiry conducted against him as per the Standing Order, 1965; but, did not dispute in all his fairness that late workman was not given opportunity to cross examine the department witnesses. 6. Heard the learned counsel and perused the record. 7. The Labour Court has, on the basis of material on record, recorded a categorical finding that the enquiry officer instead of recording the evidence of the department in the first instance, recorded the statement of the workman; the disciplinary authority did not supply copy of the charge sheet to the workman; the charges were read to him during the course of the enquiry only, he was not afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the department and there was violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the learned Singh Judge has rightly found no fault with the award dated 14.12.2011 as on account of death of the workman, his legal heirs were deprived of the opportunity to effectively rebut the evidence sought to be produced by the appellant-Corporation. We find no illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court under its intra court appellate jurisdiction. 8. Consequently, the special appeal is dismissed on merits also.