Court dismisses appeals restoration applications, final orders not modifiable without apparent error

The court rejected the applications for restoration of dismissed appeals. The judge emphasized that once a final order is passed on merits, it cannot be modified or reviewed unless there is an apparent error. Despite the appellant's absence during the initial order, the judge noted that the order was passed on merits, considering the submissions and documents. Submitting affidavits later to rectify omissions was not deemed as an error on the Tribunal's part at the time of the order. Without an apparent error, delving into the case's merits for condonation of delay would amount to reviewing the Tribunal's own order, which is beyond its power.

---

---

Issues: Restoration of dismissed appeals, Condonation of delay

Restoration of dismissed appeals:
The appellant sought restoration of appeals dismissed due to an ex parte order. The appellant's counsel argued that they could not present all facts during the initial order. They submitted an affidavit from the Director stating non-receipt of the hearing intimation and another affidavit from the consultant explaining a delay due to a fracture. The counsel pointed out a similar case where condonation of delay was allowed by the Tribunal. The appellant requested restoration of the appeals based on these grounds.

Condonation of delay:
The learned AR opposed the restoration, stating that the order dismissing the appeals was based on merits after considering the submissions in the appeal memorandum. The AR argued against condoning the delay, emphasizing that the receipt of the order by an employee should be considered as received by the company, making delay non-condonable. The AR contended that the rejection of the application for condonation was justified.

The judge considered both sides' submissions and concluded that once a final order is passed on merits, it cannot be modified or reviewed unless there is an apparent error. Despite the appellant's absence during the initial order, the order was passed on merits, considering the submissions and documents. The judge noted that submitting affidavits later to rectify omissions does not constitute an error on the Tribunal's part at the time of the order. The judge clarified that without an apparent error, delving into the case's merits for condonation of delay would amount to reviewing the Tribunal's own order, which is beyond its power. Consequently, due to the inability to review the order, the applications for restoration of the appeal were rejected.

---