R.N. Mittal, President — The appeal came up for hearing before us on 27.11.90. It was dismissed in default as none for the appellant was present. An application was filed on behalf of appellant on 4.1.91 for restoration of the appeal. It is stated in the applicsation that the case was not noted by the Counsel in his diary for 27.11.90. He, therefore, could not appear before the Commission. Consequently, it is prayed that the appeal be restored and be heard on merits.

2. The application has been opposed by the respondent who has argued mat it has been filed after a lapse of more than 30 days and that no reasonable explanation has been given as to why no one appeared on behalf of the appellant on 27.11.90.

3. We have heard the parties. It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the case was entered in his diary for 5.11.90 and therefore it was not entered in the diary for 27.11.90. Consequently he could not appear before the Commission. He has also produced his diary to support his contention.

4. The explanation given by the Counsel is not satisfactory. It may be highlighted that the application for restoration has been filed after a lapse of more than 30 days.

5. Accordi