1984 PLP 1038 (PLC(CS))

Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

S. O. 15 (3)‑"Misconduct"‑Sleeping during working hours‑ Whether amounts to misconduct‑Involuntary asleep when overcome by sleep unintentionally on place of duty Does not amount to misconduct‑Deliberately going to sleep‑Amounts to misconduct. M. S. Bokhari for Appellant. Kh. Tariq Masood for Respondent. Date of hearing : 4th October, 1982. In this appeal the decision, dated 20th December, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1. Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits. 2. The allegation against the respondent was that he slipped away from the place of his duty situated in the upper story without permission and was found sleeping on a table in another section of the factory situated on the ground floor. He was charge‑sheeted and an enquiry was held against him, which culminated in his dismissal from service. He challen ged the order of dismissal before the learned lower Court. The learned trial Judge reinstated the respondent on the ground that the allegation made against him did not amount to misconduct, inasmuch as absence from duty for two hours and going to sleep did not constitute misconduct. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that deliberate sleeping amounts to misconduct. This is true that absence from duty for two hours does not constitute misconduct, inasmuch as absence for more than ten days or habitual absence amounts to misconduct. However, deliberately going to sleep during working hours neglecting the work amounts to misconduct. Involuntary sleep when one is overcome by the sleep unintentionally does not amount to misconduct, but in the present case the respondent was found asleep on a table lying on the ground floor. If the respondent had been found sitting in his own section on the place of his duty and had been overcome by sleep while sitting, it could be said that he bad not gone to sleep intentionally, but while sitting went to sleep. The fact that he was found sleeping on the table is not denied because in his statement recorded before the learned lower Court the respondent stated that the sleeping did not amount to misconduct. The contention of the respondent was that the enquiry was not made in his presence, nor his statement was recorded and that his signatures were received by the Enquiry Officer on the proceedings by fraud on the pretext that fresh enquiry would be made, but the learned lower Court has not expressed his opinion and issued the direction to re‑instate the respondent only on the ground that going to sleep and absence for two hours did not amount to misconduct. Since no decision was given on the contentions made by the respondent, the case cannot be finally decided in appeal. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court remand the case with the direction that after deciding the remaining points raised before him by the parties, the petition be decided afresh. A. E, Appeal accepted.