JUDGMENT : 1. 4.8.1998 - At the admission stage, we propose to dispose of the present writ application after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. 2. The present writ application is filed against the order dated 16.3.1998 passed by the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in M.P. Case No. 304 of 1996 arising out of O.A. Case No. 300 of 1987. 3. The present writ petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal, which was listed on 12.3.1996 for hearing, but dismissed for default for non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The order of dismissal was communicated from the Tribunal, but it was received by the writ petitioner on 23.4.1996. Thereafter, he filed an application for setting aside the dismissal order after condoning the delay. 4. According to the writ petitioner, he was suffering from spondylitis from 23.4.1996 to 26.8.1996 and he was under medical treatment; certificate of the doctor was filed before the Tribunal. After recovery he wanted to contact the lawyer but due to strike resorted to by the lawyers from 27.8.96 to 15.9.1996, he could not do so. Ultimately when he consulted his counsel, the petitioner was asked to get 'no objection' from his previous lawyer which took sometime. 5. The petition for restoration of the Original Application was dismissed and from the impugned order, we find that even if the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant could not file the restoration application during the period from 27.8.1996 to 15.9.1996 is accepted, but no reason has been shown for non-filing of the said petition from 16.9.1996 till the date of filing i.e. 14.10.1996. The Tribunal also noted as to what prevented the applicant or conducting lawyer from making appearance on the date fixed. 6. The apex Court in Rafiq and Another Vs. Munshilal and Another had the occasion to consider the dismissal of appeal for default of appellant's counsel. The appeal was filed by the appellant but it was disposed of in absence of his counsel and his application for recall of order of dismissal was rejected by the High Court. 6. The apex Court in Rafiq and Another Vs. Munshilal and Another had the occasion to consider the dismissal of appeal for default of appellant's counsel. The appeal was filed by the appellant but it was disposed of in absence of his counsel and his application for recall of order of dismissal was rejected by the High Court. The apex Court set aside both the orders of dismissal on the ground that a party who, as per the present adversary legal system, has selected his advocate, briefed him and paid his fee can remain supremely confident that his lawyer will look after his interest and such a innocent party who has done everything in his power and expected of him, should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanor of his counsel. 7. In the case in hand also, the present writ petitioner entrusted his case to his counsel and in the absence of the counsel, his application was dismissed for default. On this ground along, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 8. We want to add a word of caution for his judicial hierarchy as expressed by the apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others. Though it was a case for condonation of delay, the apex Court expressed its concern regarding disposal of cases on technical grounds. The apex Court expressed that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. The Court also expressed that all approach taken regarding condonation of delay have not percolated down to all other Courts in the hierarchy. 9. From the impugned order, we find that the Tribunal took a technical view of the matter and did not at all consider that for no fault of the writ petitioner, he was made to suffer. 10. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to restore the Original Application and decide it on merit. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.