1989 PLP 29 (PLC)

Yousuf Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th February, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Corporation against an order, dated 31‑8‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 1 at Karachi who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to have been permanently working in the appellant Corporation as a Driver and posted at Orangi‑nala Depot and met with an accident so he was admitted in Social Security Hospital for treatment and remained there upto 7‑8‑1984 where from he was issued Fitness Certificate on the recommendations for light duty which was performed by him till his retirement, on 30‑11‑1985 against which he submitted his grievance notice followed by the grievance petition.

3. The appellant Corportion resisted the petition on the ground that as the respondent was retired from duty on account of his being declared unfit, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impunged order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation and Mr. Yousuf Khan the learned representative on behalf of the respondent and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset I would observe here that it is an admitted position that neither any medical certificate showing the respondent as unfit to perform his duties, was brought on record by the appellant Corporation nor its Medical Officer was examined to state that he had examined the respondent and found him medically unfit. Further, there is an admitted position that the respondent was given a Fitness Certificate to perform light duties by the Social Security Hospital. There is nothing on record to establish that the respondent was ever examined by the Medical Officer of the appellant Corporation. The appellant Corporation has also failed to produce any rule of the Corporation giving power to the authorised officer to retire any employee, even if he is only fit for light duty. The witness of the appellant Corporation has frankly conceded that he had permitted the respondent to perform light duties, as per recommendations of the A Social Security Hospital. In view of these facts and circumstances, I would hold that the impugned order is well reasoned and the learned Labour Court has rightly allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his reinstatement in service with all back benefits.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and should maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. A.E./1254/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.