As per case facts, petitioners challenged a Labour Court judgment that restored an application filed by Respondent No. 1. Petitioners had earlier sought wages under the Industrial Disputes Act against ... a company later acquired by Respondent No. 1, alleging lower pay. Their application was allowed ex-parte after a pending writ petition was disposed of. Respondent No. 1 sought restoration, citing lack of effective notice, an advocate's demise, and the proceedings' dormant status. Petitioners argued Respondent No. 1 had sufficient knowledge and the restoration was time-barred. The question arose whether the Labour Court erred in allowing the restoration, considering the parties' conduct, the change in case status, and the explanation for non-appearance. Finally, the High Court found that the Labour Court's decision to restore the application was a valid exercise of discretion. It noted that effective notice of the resumed hearing was critical, especially after a long abeyance and the removal of the "kept in abeyance" status without clear communication. The court upheld the restoration, allowing the original dispute to be heard on its merits, stating the Labour Court's findings were not perverse.