2. The respondent was a sweeper and on the allegation of absence without leave for two days he was terminated. No charge-sheet was given, nor any enquiry was held.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the case was not contested and on the statement of the counsel for the appellant, the respondent was re-instated, the latter was not entitled to back benefits. In the statement it was not said that back benefits may not be allowed to the respondent. Even if no concession had been made by giving statement, the respondent had a strong case, inasmuch as no misconduct had been committed. The absence was for two days only and for that too application for leave was given by the respondent. Two days' absence is not misconduct. Absence should be for more than ten days. Since no miscon--duct was committed by the respondent and without any cause he was removed from service verbally he was entitled .To back benefits and they were rightly allowed by the learned lower Court.
4. Even the appeal was not competent since it. Was not presented by any authorised person within limitation. There is on the record no letter of authority authorising Mirza Tahir Ali to present the appeal. Mr. Muzaffar Ahmad and Mr. Ziaullah, Advocates, who had been appearing on some subsequent dates did not hold any power of attorney as there is none on the record.
5. As a result of the observations made above, I dismiss the appeal on merits as well as for the reason that it was not presented and persued by any authorised agent.