' In this appeal the order, dated 27th January, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent brought against the order of his transfer from Mumtazabad to Shujabad, Multan was accepted ex parte.
2. The order proceeding ex parte against the appellants was recorded on 19th October, 1978. The reason for proceeding ex parte was that Mr. Sabir Ali, Record Keeper, XEN Office, WAPDA, had no authority letter. Mr. Khurshid Alam, Law Officer, moved an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, which was rejected by the order, dated 16th January, 1979 and the case was adjourned for ex parte evidence to 27th January, 1979 on which date the grievance petition was accepted ex parte. The application was rejected for the reason that even Law Officer had no authority letter. A copy of the resolution was produced which was unattested and unsigned.
Therefore, the learned Presiding Officer did not rely upon it. He also observed that the petition for setting aside ex paste proceedings did not bear the signatures of the appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that it was not necessary that the petition for setting aside ex parte proceedings should have been signed by the appellants, since the Law Officer had been authorised to act by the resolution. I do not find any force in this argument. Firstly, the original or copy duly certified by the appellants of the resolution had not been brought on the file before the lower Court and secondly even the uncertified copy of the resolution does not now that the Law Officer was I authorised to sign the proceedings on behalf of the appellants. To act in a case does not mean to sign the proceedings. By the resolution the power of presentation of proceedings was no doubt given but no power to sign the proceedings appears to have been given. Even the appeal presented to this Court does not are the signatures of the appellants nor an authorized Advocate. The power of attorney was executed by the Legal Advisor in favour of Mian lqbal Khalid on 19th July, 1980 whereas the appeal was presented on 27th February, 1979 and the appeal bears the signatures of Mr. Salim Aftab, in whose favour there is no power of attorney. Even the power of attorney executed in favour of Mian Iqbal Khalid does not authorise him to sign the proceedings and petitions. This is very strange that even though the trial Court objected that no authorised person appeared on behalf of the appellants and on this ground passed ex parte decision also, yet neither the application for setting aside ex parte decision was made with the signatures of the appellants, nor their signatures were received' on the memorandum of appeal.
Since no duly authorised person appeared before the lower Court, ex parte decision was rightly made. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed on merits as well as for the reason that it was not signed by the appellants themselves or by their some duly authorised agent.