Delay-based dismissal without notice or hearing was held procedurally unsound, leading to remand for fresh consideration.

Dismissal of appeals solely for delay, without notice to file a condonation application and without hearing the appellant, is procedurally unsound. The lower appellate authority rejected the matters only because of delay and absence of a condonation application, but the record indicated that the appellant later claimed to have learnt of the order through affixation at the factory. The impugned order was set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration, first on condonation of delay if sought and then on the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether dismissal of the appeals for delay, without notice to file a condonation application and without hearing the applicant, was sustainable.

Analysis: The appeals had been rejected by the lower appellate authority solely on the ground of delay and absence of a condonation application. The order was served on the company, and the appellant contended that he learnt of it later through affixation at the factory. The absence of notice requiring a condonation application and the absence of hearing before dismissal rendered the disposal procedurally unsound.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matters were remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision first on condonation of delay, if filed, and thereafter on the appeals.

---