' The above-captioned appeal challenges the decision dated 31-5-1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was of absence from 5-7-1982 to 10-7-1982. He was charge-sheeted under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and only on this short ground the learned lower Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent. It has been argued that the reason given by the learned lower Court was not sufficient, to set aside the order of dismissal.
Undisputedly Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to the case, so the action could be taken only under the said Ordinance. It has not been shown that Efficiency & Discipline Rules are statutory. According to proviso to section 1(4) (c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the said Ordinance does not apply to those establishments that are being run by or under the authority of any Government and have statutory rules of service. None of the ingredients of the abovementioned proviso stands established on the record. So Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies. The absence was for six days only (from 5-7-1982 to 107-1982), so is not covered by Standing Order 15(3) (e) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and thus does not amount to misconduct. The decision of the learned lower Court, therefore, is unexceptional.
3. As a result, the appeal being without force is dismissed.