The necessity for an adequate explanation for delay under the Limitation Act is emphasized, where negligence or lack of bona fide can negate grounds for condonation.

O R D E R

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J C.M.Appln.1 of 2025 This is an application to condone the delay of 352 days in filing the Review Petition seeking review of the judgment dated

22.02.2024 passed by this Court in W.A.No.1032/2021.

2. The reasons stated by the applicants to condone the delay, as is reflected in the affidavit, are extracted below :

“3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by relegating the respondents 1 to 6, to approach the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Dissatisfied with the judgment the respondents 1 to 6 approached Hon'ble Division bench and the Hon'ble Division bench as per order dated 22.02.2021, allowed the appeal in-part. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench the appellants approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.17102 of 2024. However, the SLP was dismissed as per order dated 09.08.2024, observing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment and order. Against the said order a review petition was filed, with Diary No.38243 of 2024 and the same also was dismissed on 12.12.2024. Thereafter, all the records sent to the Supreme Court along with the orders of the Supreme Court were received back at the Board after getting legal opinion decided to file this review petition.

4. The Writ Appeal was dismissed on 22.02.2024. Application for certified copy of the Judgment was applied on the same day. The Certified copy was ready and same was issued on 22.03.2024. Review petition ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of the impugned judgment. Thus, review petition ought to have been filed on 22.04.2024 or on the date of reopening of the court after summer holidays. i.e. 19.05.2024. But review petition could be filed only on 10.04.2025. Thus calculating from 22.04.2024 there is a delay of 352 days. The delay occurred is not due to any wilful laches or negligence on the part of the petitioners and the same happened only due to the reasons stated above.”

3. Heard Adv.Raju Joseph, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants.

4. The learned senior counsel submitted that, it is only because of the fact that the applicants have initially approached the Apex Court by filing a SLP and thereafter, by filing a Review Petition, both ending in dismissal, this Review Petition came to be filed with delay. He contended that the applicants have valuable contentions in this Review Petition and, therefore, prayed for condonation of the delay.

5. In the instant case, the judgment sought to be reviewed has been passed as early as on 22.02.2024. The records show that thereafter the applicants have approached the Apex Court by filing SLP No.17102/2024 challenging the said judgment and that, the same has been dismissed on 09.08.2024. The Apex Court, while dismissing the SLP, observed that they are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and the order passed by this Court. Thereafter, the applicants preferred a Review Petition as Diary No.38243/2024 and the same also ended in dismissal on 12.12.2024. The order passed by the Apex Court shows that it is after perusing the Review Petition, as well as the grounds in support thereof and after convincing itself that the order of which review has been sought, does not suffer from any error apparent warranting its reconsideration, the Review Petition came to be dismissed. Hence, it appears that the present application is filed with an intent to circumvent the afore proceedings, and therefore, can be found to lack bona fide.

6. Be that as it may, the applicants contend that it is after receiving the records from the Apex Court and after getting legal opin