' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 16-6-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that his outturn was low. This allegation, even if correct, does not amount to misconduct either under Standing Order 15 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 or according to the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1962 amended up to 1970. Outturn may be low on account of the inefficiency of the respondent but inefficiency not being a misconduct the order of dismissal could not be passed. Punishment for inefficiency is fine according to Standing Order 15(1). I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that according to Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, inefficiency amounts to misconduct. There is no provision; rather subsection (2) of section 4 provides minor penalties and not major penalty. It has been argued that at least back benefits should not have been allowed by the learned lower Court. The respondent deposed that he was jobless. He, therefore, has been rightly allowed back benefits. He remained jobless not for any fault of his but on account of the illegal order of dismissal from service.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.