M.Y. EQBAL, C.J. and T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

By this petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioners to condone the delay of 929 days in representing the writ appeals.

2. It appears that the petitioners filed the writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 953, 954 and 956 of 2006, challenging the orders passed by the second respondent dated 1.3.2005 terminating the petitioners from service and for a direction upon the respondents to, reinstate the petitioners with all attendant service benefits.

3. Before the learned single Judge, the second respondent raised an objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petitions by stating that the second respondent is not a “ State ” , within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and further stated that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy under the . The learned Judge heard the writ petitions and by a common order dated 15.2.2007, sustained the objections raised by the second respondent and held that as the petitioners have effective alternative remedy under the Labour Legislation, the writ petitions are not maintainable and dismissed the same giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropria