Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. MN‑608 and 613 of ,1984, decided on 16th February, 1985.

‑‑ Retirement on medical grounds‑Driver of Government transport Service retired on account ‑of lack of vision‑Medical certificate describing eye‑sight weak but night vision satisfactory‑Certificate, in circumstances, held, self‑contradictory and reinstatement order passed by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A and 38(3).

‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑ Reinstatement ‑ Back benefits‑Petitioner a driver stating that he worked with a Lawyer during intervening period-- Neither period of such service nor remuneration mentioned --Petitioner, in circumstances, held, bound to disclose his total earnings before claiming back benefits and would be entitled to difference only.

Abdul Majeed for Appellant.

Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 2nd February, 1985.

The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 1st October, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby Syed Fazal Hussain Shah (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. Government Transport Service, Multan (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respondent in service, whereas the latter has in his appeal claimed back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The respondent was retired on account of weak eye‑sight. The medical certificate on the basis of which the respondent was retired from service is self‑contradictory. Eye‑sight is mentioned as weak but night vision is described as satisfactory. Field of vision is mentioned as normal. If one can see satisfactorily at night, bow can he be said to be having a poor vision I had the opportunity to see same kind of certificate in another case. Probably that too was issued by the same doctor. Such self‑contradictory certificates are of no value. Since the respondent can see satisfactorily at night, his vision cannot be poor for driving. He is a human being and not a bat that he can see very well at night but cannot see in the day. So he was rightly directed to be reinstated in service.

3. So far as the question of back benefits is concerned, the respondent said that he had been working with a lawyer but he neither gave the period of his service nor the remunerations. He was bound to disclose his total earnings since he was claiming back benefits. If his earnings were less than what he would have earned but for his retirement, he would have been entitled to the difference only.

4. As a result, both the appeals are dismissed.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.