1984 PLP 597 (PLC(CS))

Appellant in person. S. Intisar Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing : 14th February, 1984. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision, dated 7th June, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a skilled carpenter in Grade‑

5. On 20th October, 1981 he lost the vision of right eye in an accident. An iron scrape fell in his eye that could not be removed in the Cairns Hospital, where he was sent. He was then sent to Mayo Hospital, where the particle was taken out but his eye could not 'De unfortunately saved. He was got medically examined from the Railway doctor who found him unfit for C‑1 but recommended him for C‑

2. So he was offered a post in scale No. 1 which he refused. The appellant examined Muhammad Hanif P. W. 1 and appeared as his own witness. P. W. 1 deposed that he had in an accident lost the vision of his right eye but he was given the same category in which he was serving before the accident. The appellant stated that his case is identical with the case of P. W. I so he is entitled to category No

1. P. W.1 admitted in cross‑examination that the doctor had not changed his category. This being so, this is incorrect that the case of the appellant is identical to the case of Muhammad Hanif (P. W. 1). On account of loss of vision the post in same category cannot be given for the safeguard of third persons, as well as for the protection of the man concerned. So as of necessity cate gory is changed and that duty is given for which the person concerned has been found capable.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant should have been got examined by the Medical Board instead of a single doctor but he has not been able to cite any rule in support of his argument. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, cited rule 35 (vii) of Medical Manual Chapter‑1, which does not say that a board is to be constituted. It says that after accident and injury to eyes the employee is to be got examined by the Medical Officer and if vision is found to be below the standard required for his class of employment, he should be dealt with in accordance with Regulation No. 2 Note 3 of the Regulations for Medical Examination of Candidates and Employees Non‑Gazetted. Note 3 does not say that only a medical board can examine but Chief Medical‑Officer or Health Officer or Divisional Medical Officer are also mentioned. So the respondent did not commit any illegality in relying upon the opinion of a single medical officer and the learned lower Court rightly dismissed the petition.

4. As a result, the appeal having no force is dismissed. A.E. Appeal dismissed.