JUDGMENT D.B. Writ Restoration Application No. 29/2019 & D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 324/2019: 1. On 15.11.2016 a Division Bench passed a peremptory order that if within four weeks the appellant took no steps to file notices to serve the contesting respondent the appeal shall automatically stand dismissed without reference to the Court. No steps being taken the Deputy Registrar(Judicial) passed a consequential order on 22.12.2016. 2. Restoration has been sought with a delay of 716 days. Sufficient cause pleaded in seeking restoration is that the Counsel engaged could not appear on 15.11.2016 and thus this would be sufficient cause. 3. The Counsel may not have appeared on 15.11.2016 but the fact of the matter remains that the appellant was taking no steps to file the process fee and effect service upon the contesting respondent. The client ought to have been in touch with the Counsel to know the fate of the appeal. 4. Lest a meritorious cause is sacrificed on the anvil of procedural laws we have also prima-facie considered the merits of the impugned order and find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The workman was reinstated in service. Towards back wages only Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be paid as per the award which was impugned before the learned Single Judge. Vide impugned order dated 13.10.2008 the learned Single Judge has noted that the workman was reinstated and had been working since 08.12.1994. The writ petition was decided on 13.10.2008. The learned Single Judge has also noted the circulars issued by the appellant, as per which conductors found carrying passengers upto 5 without a ticket were to be levied penalty of Rs. 2,000/- per passenger and if the passengers were more than 5 and less than 10, apart from penalty of Rs. 2,000/- per passenger, penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was prescribed. 5. Considering that the workman had been reinstated in terms of the award and had worked till when the writ petition was decided in the year 2008 and because he has not been served in the appeal he continues to work till now, it would not be a case where a meritorious cause is sacrificed on the anvil of procedural laws. 6. 6. We dismiss the application seeking restoration of the appeal noting no sufficient cause shown to condone 716 days delay in seeking restoration of the appeal. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also dismissed.