Repeated non-appearance warrants dismissal of the application for non-prosecution.

Twenty-six applicants filed the Original Application against the Union of India and railway authorities.

No one appeared for the applicants on the hearing date.

The Tribunal noted that they had also been unrepresented on 24 April 2026 and 24 July 2026, and inferred that they had lost interest in pursuing the matter.

1. Whether the Original Application should be dismissed for default and non-prosecution because the applicants had repeatedly failed to appear

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a proceeding may be dismissed for default and non-prosecution where the party pursuing it repeatedly fails to appear.

The order cites no statute, tribunal rule, or precedent as the basis for this principle.

The Tribunal relied on the applicants’ absence on the hearing date and on two earlier occasions.

From this repeated non-appearance, it concluded that the applicants had lost interest in pursuing the Original Application and dismissed it for default and non-prosecution. The Tribunal did not consider the substantive merits of the claim.

It made no order as to costs.