1984 PLP 1489 (PLC(CS))

‑‑S. O. 15 (3) (e)‑Misconduct‑Habitual absence‑Four days absence in period of two months‑Not sufficient to prove that workman had developed habit of remaining absent without leave‑There should be sufficient instances to develop habitual absence‑--Such simple absence, held, does not amount to misconduct calling for major penalty of dismissal. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant. Date of hearing : 13th February, 1982. Punjab Road Transport Board has appealed through its General Manager (Administration), Lahore against the decision, dated 21st October, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No 5, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was ordered to be re‑instated without back benefits. The alleged misconduct was of habitual absence. The respondent had applied for leave w. e. f. 18th February, 1980 to 29th February, 1980 vide application R. 9, for his own marriage but leave of five days only upto 22nd February, 1980 was sanctioned. He had remained absent on 5th March, 1980, 16th April, 1980, 17th April, 1980 and 20th April, 1980 also. He is alleged to have applied for leave for 5th March, 1980 and claimed rest on 16th April, 1980 for 17th April, 1980 in lieu of 12th April, 1980 to 14th April, 1980 during which period he alleged to have remained at Mananwala due to break down of Bus No. 2704. He, however, could not prove that he had applied for leave for 5th March, 1980 and actually claimed rest on any day and that any break down of bus had taken place. Even if it be said that any break down had taken place due to which he had to be detained at Mananwala from 12th April, 1980 to 14th April, 1980 he was not justified for remaining absent or claiming rest on 16th April, 1980 and 17th April, 1980 because he was not marked absent from 12th April, 1980 to 14th April, 1980, and then there is no application claiming rest. Admittedly he bad not applied for leave for 28th April, 1980. However, the absence of 7 days from 23rd February, 1980 to 29th February, 1980 could riot be considered since it was not proved that he was informed that leave upto 22nd February, 1980 only had been sanctioned. So, absence was only on 5th March‑, 1980, 16th and 17th April, 1980 and 20th April, 1980. Four days absence on these occasions is not sufficient to show that remaining absent without leave had A become the habit of the respondent. To develop habit of remaining absent there should sufficient instances. Simple absence does not amount to misconduct calling for the penalty of dismissal. It was only a simple absence and could be dealt with minor punishment, So, the learned lower! Court rightly directed the reinstatement without back benefits although on different grounds. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.