JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. Matter is taken up on the revised call. Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. None appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner has assailed the award dated 24.12.2014 (published on 2.4.2016) and also the order dated 27.1.2017 rejecting the application for recall of ex-parte award dated 24.12.2014.

3. The award was passed on 24.12.2016 and was published on 2.4.2014. The learned labour Court dismissed the restoration application by the impugned order dated 27.1.2017 solely on the footing that the same had been filed after 30 days.

4. The validity of a restoration application filed after a period of 30 days was examined in M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. vs. Phool Chand, 2018 (16) SCC 567. In M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. (supra), it was held that the power to restore a case dismissed for non prosecution lay squarely within the ambit of ancillary powers of the tribunal to do justice:

''34. In case a party is in a position to show sufficient cause for its absence before the Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set ex-parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal, in exercise of its ancillary or incidental powers, is competent to entert