ORDER : Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. (Prayers: (i) CMP.No.704 of 2022 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 170 days in filing the writ appeal; and (ii) WA.SR.No.9086 of 2021 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.6.2019 in W.P.No.9753 of 2018.) 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The above miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 170 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 19.6.2019 passed in W.P.No.9753 of 2018. 3. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this petition, we do not find any reason justifying the delay in filing the appeal. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the affidavit, explanation for the delay has been given. For ready reference, paragraphs 16 and 17 of the affidavit are quoted as hereunder: “16. I respectfully submit that the orders have been passed in W.P.No.9753 of 2018 dated 19.6.2019 and the judgment copy was received by me on 10.9.2019. Hence, the writ appeal ought to have been filed within 10.10.2019. However, the writ appeal is filed with a delay of days. 17. I further submit that the delay in filing of the appeal is neither willful nor wanton but due to the following genuine reasons: (1) I conducted W.P.No.9753 of 2018 through Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority and authority was doing conciliation between me and the management for long time and the respondent/management had to come from Coimbatore so it was delayed and lastly the respondent/management refused to pay the compensation as per the orders of the Trial Court. (2) The counsel, who represented my case before the Hon’ble High Court lost her husband suddenly, so the counsel could not come forward to conduct the case before Hon’ble High Court Bench. (3) By this time, corona Covid-19 spoiled all my efforts to find and fix counsel to take up the appeal before this Hon’ble Bench.” 4. We are of the view that paragraph 16 quoted above does not give any reason for condonation of delay; so also paragraph 17. 5. Paragraph 17(1) talks about conciliation between the management and the employee with reference to W.P.No.9753 of 2018 and after the judgment. Paragraph 17(2) talks about the sudden death of the counsel’s husband and therefore, she could not come forward to conduct the case. 5. Paragraph 17(1) talks about conciliation between the management and the employee with reference to W.P.No.9753 of 2018 and after the judgment. Paragraph 17(2) talks about the sudden death of the counsel’s husband and therefore, she could not come forward to conduct the case. The order impugned refers to the presence of the counsel. The case was conducted by the counsel and date of the death of her husband has not been given. Paragraph 17(3) refers to Covid-19 pandemic for the delay in filing the appeal ignoring the fact that Covid-19 began in the month of March 2020, which is subsequent to the order copy furnished to the petitioner. 6. Thus, we do not find any justification to condone the delay. Even though the industrial dispute was raised after 17 years, however, we are not going into the merits of the case due to the unexplained delay in filing the writ appeal. 7. Finding no justification in the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay, we dismiss this petition only with reference to condonation of delay. Consequently, the writ appeal is rejected at the SR stage.