Lack of valid authorisation and no power of review prevent recall of an ex parte tribunal order.

Ex parte disposal of an appeal was not treated as a mistake apparent on the face of the record where counsel lacked valid authority to represent the respondent, because no proper vakalatnama or other authorisation was produced. The Tribunal held that refusal to hear such counsel did not justify recall of the final order. It further stated that objections directed to the merits could not be reopened in review on a miscellaneous application, as the Tribunal has no inherent power to review its own order absent statutory authority. The request to recall the final order was therefore rejected and the review petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte disposal of the appeal, on the basis that the counsel had no proper authority to represent the respondent, constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting recall of the final order; and whether the Tribunal could re-open the merits of the order in a review on miscellaneous application.

Analysis: The letter of authority relied upon by the counsel was found to have been written by himself without authority from the respondent, and no valid vakalatnama or other proof of authorisation was produced. On those facts, refusal to hear him did not amount to any apparent mistake in the final order. The objections directed against the merits could not be examined in review because the Tribunal, being a creature of statute, has no power to review its own order.

Conclusion: The request to recall the final order was rejected, and the miscellaneous review petition failed.

---