' The above-captioned appeal challenges the decision, dated 6th February, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore to the extent the appellant has not been allowed back benefits.
2. The allegations for which the appellant was dismissed from service was that during night shift he left the place of his duty situated on the first floor, went to ground floor and slept there from 9-30 to 11-30 p. m. When he was awakened. The learned lower Court has found that the allegation was not established and that even if the evidence led by the respondent be believed, the allegation did not constitute misconduct. I do not find myself in agreement with the learned Presiding Officer to his observation that only habitual negligence of duty is misconduct but since he had found that no allegation was proved, he could have disallowed back benefits to the appellant for some other reason. No reason has been given. If misconduct was not established, then the dismissal was illegal and the appellant was entitled to back benefits also. Since the respondent has not appealed against the direction of re-instatement, I am not in a position to consider if the allegation was proved. However, as the case was not finally decided soon and was remanded for decision the respondent may not be burdened with the payment of full back benefits.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is allowed 50 .Per cent back benefits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.