JUDGMENT :

1. Earlier, the appellant/writ petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition in W.P.No.4690 of 2010, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to I.D.No.154 of 2006 and quash the award dated 23.12.2008 passed therein by the first respondent and further direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back-wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

2. The above said Writ Petition was dismissed on 04.04.2012 by the learned Single Judge holding as follows:

"4. .... The Labour Court concurred with the finding of the enquiry officer that the petitioner committed irregularity and she is also equally responsible for issuing of jewel loan without verifying the genuineness of the jewel pledged and that too issuing the appraisal receipt after the payment of loan. It is held by the Labour Court that the petitioner had not disputed the irregularity committed by her. Based on the material evidence and considering the report of the enquiry officer marked as Ex.R-8 and the explanation given by the petitioner, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a proper way, the explanation of the petitioner was considered and the evidence of Management witness was taken into consideration for holding the petitioner guilty of issuing wrong jewel appraisal certificates in respect of jewel loan. The Labour Court based on the evidence on record clearly came to the conclusion that there was no material evidence placed by the delinquent to relieve her from the liability of issuing false certificates without verifying the genuineness of the jewel which was the basis for issuing the jewel loan. Therefore, it justified the order of dismissal.

5. In support of the writ petition, except the Labour Court award, no other material is placed by the petitioner. No evidence or document was let in on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court. None of the documents which are relied upon during domestic enquiry has been relied upon by the petitioner in support of the writ petition to prove the plea taken that there is violation of principles of natural justice. In the absence of any material oral or documentary to support the case of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Labour Court.

6. The petitioner's counsel only plea is that the petitioner acted on instruction of the superior and that plea is not supported by material.

7. Finding no merits, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs."

3. Aggrieved by the above order of dismissal passed by the learned Single Judge in the said Writ Petition, the appellant/writ petitioner has preferred Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, in W.A.S.R.No.135334 of 2022, but with delay of 3564 days in filing the same, resulting in filing of C.M.P.No.21398 of 2022 to condone the said delay.

4. Since the delay is very huge, this Court, even without issuing notice to the respondents, is of the view that the enormous delay should not be condoned.

5. The main ground for the delay urged by the writ petitioner in filing the Writ Appeal is that she was suffering from spinal cord problems and was immobile for ten years. It is alleged by her in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition that she was in rest till August 2022 as per the Physician's advise. In March 2020, it is stated by her that she was suffering from Covid-19 and only recently, she had recovered from health issues. She further stated that in view of change of Advocate, the petitioner could not file the appeal in time. In the process of getting order copy and change of Advocate, coupled with the above said health problems, she has not filed the Writ Appeal in time, resulting in filing of C.M.P.No.21398 of 2022 before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, while reiterating t