JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. The appeal filed by the appellant was lying under defects which were not cured. Listed before the Court, on 25.01.2012 fifteen days time was granted by the Court to remove the defects. None being removed the appeal was dismissed due to not removing the defects vide order dated 28.03.2012. 2. Seeking restoration of the appeal vide D.B. Civil Restoration Application No.542/2018, blame is put on the shoulders of the Counsel engaged by the appellant. The delay in seeking restoration is of 2359 days and for which once again the blame is put on the shoulders of the Counsel. 3. What steps the appellant took to seek information from the Counsel regarding the status of the appeal has not been pleaded. 4. Lest a meritorious cause is sacrificed on the anvil of procedural laws we have looked into the merits of the matter as well. 5. Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed vide impugned order dated 08.07.2011. In the writ petition challenge was made to an order dated 23.12.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. 6. Application of the appellant under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was the subject matter of consideration before the Industrial Tribunal. The workman was a conductor. He was charge-sheeted. His services were terminated on 28.07.1998. Approval was sought. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the enquiry was not fair. At that stage the appellant filed an application seeking permission to lead evidence. By then the workman died. The Tribunal held that since the workman had died enquiry could not be held by permitting the appellant to lead evidence. The learned Single Judge has concurred. 7. The contention in the appeal is that once the enquiry is held to be vitiated, Industrial Tribunal has to allow the Management to lead evidence. 8. The plea is noted and found to be without any substance on the facts of the instant case because where the workman dies the legal heirs cannot be expected to defend the charge because facts would be in the personal knowledge of the workman. 9. To sum up, the case prosecuted in the appeal is not of a kind which would entitle the applicant to 2359 days delay in seeking restoration being condoned. 10. Accordingly, we dismiss D.B. Civil Misc. 9. To sum up, the case prosecuted in the appeal is not of a kind which would entitle the applicant to 2359 days delay in seeking restoration being condoned. 10. Accordingly, we dismiss D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.1013/2018 and as a consequence dismiss D.B. Civil Restoration Application No.542/2018 being barred by limitation. 11. Both the applications are dismissed.