Restoration after non-prosecution fails absent satisfactory explanation and updated service address for notice.

Restoration after dismissal for non-prosecution requires a satisfactory explanation for non-appearance, and the party must keep the Tribunal informed of any change of address for service. Where notice was sent to the recorded address and the record showed that the same address later received the dismissal order, the explanation that counsel had not received notice was not accepted. The application to recall the dismissal was therefore rejected and the appeal was not restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution should be recalled and the appeal restored.

Analysis: The notice sent to the appellant had been returned with the remark that the factory was closed. The appellant had not intimated any change of address to the Tribunal or the postal authorities. The explanation that the counsel had not received notice was not accepted, as the record showed that notice had been sent to the same address at which the dismissal order was subsequently received by counsel.

Conclusion: The application for restoration was rejected and the dismissal for non-prosecution was not recalled.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking restoration after dismissal for non-prosecution must show a satisfactory explanation for non-appearance and must keep the Tribunal informed of any change of address for service of notice.

---