1984 PLC(CS) 1417

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 8th May, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent; therefore, the appeal has been beard ex parte.

2. The allegation against the respondent for which he was dismissed were that he bad driven within the yard truck of the appellant without any driving licence. No damage was caused to the truck, or to any other property. No allegation that any accident took place. Apparently the respondent had not taken the vehicle on the road and had driven it within the yard. The boundary of the yard being very small, apparently the respondent must have driven the truck only for while. Since no damage to the truck or to any of the property of the employer occurred, it cannot be said that the act of the respondent amounted to misconduct. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has said that the employer suffered the loss of the diesel which was consumed while the respondent had driven .the truck. I do not find any force in this argument. As I have mentioned above, the truck was driven within the yard only for a while, therefore, the quantity of the diesel which was used was negligible. Since the respon dent has no driving licence, therefore, be violated Standing Order 15 (1) (ii) (a) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which does not amount to misconduct. The respondent was rightly re‑instated. However, as with out permission and without licence the respondent had driven the truck, his act was not warranted by law, therefore, he was not entitled to back benefits.

3. I, accordingly, partly accept the appeal and modify the impugned decision of the learned lower Court disallowing back benefits to the respondent.

M. I.

Appeal partly accepted.