1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3471 OF 1999 Ashok Santoo Shingte. ...Petitioner. Vs. The Head Angel Polytechnic & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mr. M.S. Lagu i/b. Mr. R.S. Apte for the Petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Londhe i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. April 3, 2008. P.C.: The Petitioner who was employed as an Instrument Foreman in the Polytechnic conducted by the Respondents, filed an appeal before the School Tribunal at Navi Mumbai, aggrieved by the termination of his services. The appeal was dismissed in default by an order dated 23rd July 1998. An application for restoration was filed being Misc. Application No.31 of 1998. The ground which was urged in support thereof was that on the date on which the appeal was to be taken up for hearing, there was a disruption of the train services as a result of which, Learned Counsel could not remain present. This 2 was rejected by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal on the ground that the reasons “are usual ground for Mumbaikars”. A copy of the application has been produced on record by Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and it records that the Petitioner had eventually reached the Tribunal, but by that time the appeal had been dismissed in default. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the basis on which the application for restoration was dismissed was erroneous. Calling the ground, a “usual ground” for the residents of Mumbai provides for no justification to dismiss the application for restoration. The ground was not found to be lacking in truth and substance. The Tribunal could have rejected the application if that was the case, but there is no finding of the Tribunal that the ground not was true. The applicant has, prima facie, shown his bona fides when he states that he had as a matter of fact reached the Tribunal. However, there was some delay by which time the appeal had already been dismissed in default. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal is unsustainable. The order of the School Tribunal rejecting the application for restoration will have to be 3 quashed and set aside. Sufficient cause was shown by the Petitioner. There was no reply on the record of the Tribunal opposing the application for restoration. The impugned order dated 3rd November 1998 is consequently quashed and set aside. The appeal shall stand restored to the file of the School Tribunal. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 24th April 2008 on which date, the Tribunal shall issue necessary directions for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. In the event that the Petitioner or his Advocate fail to remain present before the Tribunal on the said date, it would be open to the Tribunal to take necessary steps in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is made absolute in these terms. There shall be no order as to costs. .......