1983 PLP 858 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD DIN Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD
| Citation | 1983 PLP 858 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIN Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 858 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 858 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 858 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD DIN Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant.
- Sh. Aftab Ahmad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 19th February, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 37-Termination of service on medical grounds -Assistant Yard Master of Road Transport Board challenging termination for medical. reasons on plea that he was never examined by Medical Officer issuing certificate-Medical certificate containing self-contradictory reports-Petitioner producing certificate of Medical Superintendent of Government Hospital certifying his fitness- Termination order, in circumstances, held, not justified-Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition set aside and appeal for re-instatement accepted by appellate Tribunal-Certificate of Medical Superintendent having not been produced earlier before employer back benefits not granted.
Judgment & Decree
The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was employed as a driver on 3-8-1961. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Yard Master on 19-4-1980. He was terminated on 27-3-1981 on medical grounds. The medical report relied upon by the respondent in this respect is Exh. R-3. The appellant deposed that he was never medically examined by the medical officer of the respondent and that only his signatures were received. In spite of this denial the doctor was not examined to rebut the allegation and to prove report Exh. R-3. The appellant on the contrary produced medical certificate of the Medical Superintendent to the effect that he was fit for his duty.
2. The medical certificate Exh. R-3 relied upon by the respondent is self-contradictory and thus has no evidentiary value. It suggests that the appellant was physically unfit but at the same time reported that eye-sight was correct and hearing capacity was normal. Against the column of `other deformity' the word `nil' is written, meaning thereby that the appellant was not suffering from any other deformlity. When this was so, how could he be said to be physically unfit. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the arm of the appellant is fractured. But there is no evidence to that effect on the file Medical Superintendent is deemed to be more experienced and competent than a Medical Officer. The certificate of the Medical Superintendent produced by the appellant, therefore, completely rebuts and controverts the medical certificate Exh. R-3 of the medical officer. The termination of the appellant was, therefore, unjustified and uncalled for. 1, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the order of termination and the impugned order of the learned lower Court, direct the re-instatement of the appellant in service. Since the appellant has not shown that he had produced medical certificate of the Medical Superintendent before the respondent, he is not entitled to back benefits. Appeal accepted.