K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether the Government have got the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond sixty days from the date of receipt of the order, under S.8(5) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 is the question posed for consideration in these cases.

2. Writ petitioner in O.P.No.14892 of 1999 was served with the final determination order for the periods 1993-94 and 1994-95 by the District Executive Officer of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board by registered post which was returned with the postal endorsement "addressee unclaimed”. Appeals were preferred before the Government on 8.4.1999 after a period of more, than four years against the final determination order for the year 1993-94 and after a period of more than three years against the final determination order for the year 1994-95. Contention was raised before Government that final determination orders, were wrongly and falsely returned by the postman to the District Executive Officer with the endorsement "addressee unclaimed" and therefore, appeals preferred Were liable to be entertained. Explanation was not acceptable to the appellate authority and the appeals were rejected as time barred.

3. Petitioner has approached this court challenging the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as time barred and also the final determination orders invoking Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Contention was raised that the final determination orders were not served on the petitioner and that the endorsement made by the postman as "unclaimed" was not correct. Further it was also pointed out that even if there was delay in filing the appeals before the appellate authority, appellate authority has got power to condone the delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act. Contention was also raised that even if the appeals are not maintainable, petitioner is entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned single Judge went into the merits of the case and took the view that liability cast on the writ petitioner as per the final determination orders were, bad in law, so also government order rejecting the appeal. It was also ordered that the liability cast on the petitioner as per Ext.P7 order shall be recovered only after rectifying the mistake in the schedule to the said order incorporating the name of the employees. District Executive Officer of the Welfare Fund Board is aggrieved by the judgment and has filed this appeal.

5. Counsel appearing for the Board submitted that learned single Judge has committed a grave error in entertaining the writ petition since the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal as time barred. Counsel submitted that the question of examining the merits of the case does not arise in a case where petitioner had not availed of the statutory remedy of appeal before the Government. On merits also counsel submitted that learned single Judge has committed an error in granting the reliefs. Counter affidavit has dealt with in detail the steps taken by the District Executive Officer in serving the final determination order on the writ petitioner. Steps taken by the officer in conducting the enquiry and collecting evidence before the issuance of the final determination order have also been stated in the counter affidavit. Further it is also pointed out that the petitioner had filed a suit, O.S.No.407 of 1996 before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha which was dismissed. Later writ petitioner appeared before the District Executive Officer on 24.5.1999 and applied for the issuance of a copy of the final determination orders for the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 and filed an appeal before the Labour Secretary to Government, Trivandrum under S.8(5) of the Act. Appellate authority dismissed the appeal since there was delay in filing the appeal. Further it is stated that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay.

6. O