Recall of dismissal for non-prosecution allowed where prior participation and inadvertent absence justified restoration of appeals.

The dismissal of the appeals for non-prosecution was recalled after the tribunal accepted that the appellants had previously participated in the proceedings and had sought adjournments, showing that the appeals were still being pursued. Their absence on the relevant date was treated as inadvertent rather than intentional, and the explanation for non-appearance was found sufficient to justify restoration. The applications were therefore allowed, the dismissal order was set aside, and the appeals were restored to their original number.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution should be recalled and the appeals restored to their original number.

Analysis: The applications were supported by the appellants' previous participation in the proceedings and the pattern of adjournments, which indicated continued pursuit of the appeals. The absence on the relevant date was accepted as inadvertent rather than intentional, and the explanation for missing the date was found sufficient to justify recall of the dismissal order.

Conclusion: The applications were allowed, the order dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution was recalled, and the appeals were restored.

---