Inordinate delay in filing appeal without satisfactory explanation disqualifies appellant from relief under Article 226.

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 16TH MAGHA, 1947 WA NO. 2204 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.01.2024 IN WP(C) NO.4987 OF 2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/S:

HOME NURSE SERVICE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JEEVAN THOMAS, NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001 BY ADVS. SHRI.BLAZE K.JOSE;

SMT.GAYATHRI A.L.; SMT.AFRUS SHAHANA RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (APPELLLATE AUTHORITY UNDER KERALA SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT 1960), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

2 V.P. SREEKALA, VADAKKATHUSSERIYIL, S.H. MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 006 BY ADV SHRI.BLESSEN GEORGY MATHEWS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 15.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4987 of 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. Heard on C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay. As per the office note, the writ appeal has been filed with a delay of 556 days.

3. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act , it is stated that the judgment against which the present writ appeal is preferred was passed on 15.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 4987 of 2015. It is averred that the case file was misplaced by the advocate who had earlier handled the writ petition and, despite repeated searches, the file could not be traced.

3.1 Thereafter, an application was submitted on 02.12.2024 for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment dated 15.01.2024, and the certified copy was obtained on 03.12.2024.

3.2 Despite further repeated efforts, the file could not be traced.

Subsequently, the appellant applied for a certified copy of the writ petition, which was received on 06.08.2025. Therefore, a delay of 556 days has occurred in filing the writ appeal. The delay in filing the writ appeal was neither wilful nor deliberate but occurred due to bona fide reasons. Therefore, the delay in filing the writ appeal may be condoned and the matter be heard on merits.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for condonation of delay, contending that there is an inordinate delay of 556 days in filing the writ appeal. It is submitted that, on perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay, no cogent or satisfactory grounds have been made out to justify such delay. It is further contended that the alleged fault of the counsel cannot be a valid ground for condoning the delay, particularly in the absence of any proper or plausible explanation. In these circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed and consequently, the writ appeal be also dismissed.

5. The issue relating to condonation of delay is no longer res integra, and the Supreme Court has settled the legal position through a catena of decisions, which are reproduced hereunder:

Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. V. K. Thangappan and another

5.1 The Supreme Court, in the above case, has held as follows: “6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the di