1989 PLP 646 (PLC(CS))

(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (vi of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 1(4) & S.15(3)(a)‑‑Municipal Committee Conduct Rules‑‑Misconduct‑ Municipal Committee Conduct Rules providing that absence of one day would constitute misconduct, held, has no legal existence being against provisions of S.O, 1u(3)(a) according to which absence of more than ten days constitutes misconduct. Manzoor Ahmed for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad Ideeb for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1989. The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 31‑10‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement in service has been accepted with full back benefits.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was absence of one day i.e. 20‑4‑1985. According to Standing Order 15(3)(e) absence for more than ten days constitutes misconduct. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that according to the Municipal Corporation Conduct Rules, absence of one day constitutes misconduct. The Rules have not been placed on the record, therefore, it cannot be said that they are statutory or not. Even if according to the Municipal Corporation Conduct Rules, absence of one day constitutes misconduct, it being against the provisions of Standing Order 15 has no legal existence. Standing Orders Ordinance, is not applicable only to those establishments which are run by or under the authority of the Government and have statutory rules of service. Municipal Corporations are autonomous bodies and are neither a department of the Government nor working under the authority of the Government. They exist and work under the Municipal Act and Municipal Ordinance, therefore, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies and since absence for more than ten days constitutes misconduct, the respondent did not commit B any misconduct by remaining absent only for one day. He was thus wrongly dismissed and the learned lower Court has rightly directed his reinstatement in service.

3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the respondent urged in his statement that right from 16‑9‑1985, which is date of the delivery of the order of dismissal to him he remained jobless. No evidence was produced by the appellant to rebut this statement. So, back benefits have also been rightly allowed by the learned lower Court.

4. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./660/Lb. P Appeal dismissed