Repeated adjournments and non-appearance justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Tribunal procedure.

Repeated adjournments were rejected where the appellants had already been given multiple opportunities, including a last chance, but still failed to produce any medical certificate or supporting material and their counsel was unable to argue. The Tribunal applied the limit on adjournments under the governing procedural provision and its power under the appeal rules to refuse any further postponement. It followed the settled approach discouraging repeated adjournments and held that an appeal may be dismissed when the appellant does not appear or does not prosecute the matter. The appeals were therefore liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, and dismissal was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals could be adjourned further and, in the absence of appearance and readiness to argue, whether they were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Analysis: The appellants had repeatedly sought adjournments on earlier dates, including by asserting that counsel was out of station or unavailable, and the Tribunal had already granted repeated opportunities, including a last chance. When the matter was finally taken up, no medical certificate or other supporting material was produced and even the counsel present expressed inability to argue. In view of the limit on adjournments under the governing provision and the Tribunal's procedural power under the appeal rules, the Tribunal held that no further adjournment could be granted. Reliance was also placed on the settled approach discouraging repeated adjournments and on the Tribunal's discretion to dismiss an appeal where the appellant does not appear or prosecute the matter.

Conclusion: The appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, and dismissal was justified.

---