' In this appeal the decision, dated 16th December, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad, has been challenged to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he was a habitual absentee and that he had tampered with the attendance register by changing his mark of absence into mark of presence. The learned lower Court found that the allegations made against the appellant did not amount to misconduct, nor any misconduct was proved. So far as absence is concerned, it was for one day only. On one day the appellant had obtained short leave and the other day he did not attend his duty. In the charge-sheet, however, it was mentioned that previously also he was habitual absentee, but no dates were given nor any evidence was produced during the enquiry. The allegation that previously also he was habitual absentee, the charge-sheet is vague, inasmuch as it did not disclose the dates on which the appellant was alleged to have remained absent. Absence of one day obviously did not amount to habitual absence. For habitual absence there should be series of absence without leave. So far as the allegation of tampering with the record is concerned, as mentioned above, the finding of the learned trial Judge is that the allegation was not proved. Since the appellant had taken short leave, on resuming his duty he was entitled to mark himself present and such marking of presence obviously did not amount to tampering with the record. In cases where the allegations did not amount to misconduct or the allegations have not been established, the incumbent is entitled to back benefits and it cannot be said that only on technical grounds, he was reinstated. In these circumstances, the appellant was entitled to back benefits. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and allow back benefits to the appellant.