' The order dated 10-7-1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad allowing the respondent to withdraw his grievance petition with permission to bring fresh one, has been challenged.
2. Notice of appeal was sent to the respondent through jail where he is serving two years R.I. And in response to it his application was received for the adjournment of the case till the time he was released from jail after serving out the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. He was served with another notice by registered post through the same jail informing that the case could not be kept pending for such a long time, therefore, he should arrange to engage some counsel, but no reply to the notice has been received back, nor the notice has come back undelivered. It is presumed that the notice has been served upon the respondent, so the revision has been heard ex parte.
3. The impugned order is not a decision given under section 25-A, so no appeal lies. The appeal, therefore, has been treated as a revision.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the counsel for the respondent refused to sign the statement recorded by the learned lower Court saying that the respondent was in jail and that he had no instruction to withdraw the case and to ask for permission to bring fresh petition. Withdrawal of the case with permission to bring fresh one has been ordered for the reason that the grievance petition was not presented by the respondent himself but was presented by his counsel. A perusal of the file shows that the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent does not bear his signatures. This fact coupled with the circumstances that the respondent, being in jail, was not in a position to present the fresh grievance petition personally, shows that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that the learned counsel for the respondent refused to withdraw the case and sign the statement not made by him. There being no request for withdrawal of the case with permission to bring fresh one, the learned lower Court was not competent to pass the impugned order.
5. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the case is remanded for disposal in accordance with law.