Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. LHR‑69 of 1985, decided on 28th September, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. ‑25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Bus driver declared medically of weak eye‑sight and fit only for driving light vehicles‑‑‑ Retired from service‑‑‑Labour Court passing re‑instatement order directing for being deputed to drive light vehicles‑‑No evidence that post of light vehicle driver available and bus driver had no guaranteed right to be deputed to drive light vehicle‑‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal.
Muhammad Aslam Kalyar for Appellant.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing: 21st September, 1985.
The decision, dated 30‑11‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5 Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the order of retirement of the respondent from service was set aside and he was directed to be deputed to drive light vehicles.
2. The respondent was a bus driver. On being medically examined it was found that his eye‑sight for driving bus was weak. The learned lower Court got the respondent medically examined during the pendency of the grievance petition and the expert reported that his eye‑sight was weak but the respondent was fit for driving light vehicles. The impugned decision is not sustainable. In the presence of medical report that the eye‑sight of the respondent was weak, the order of retirement could not be set aside. The respondent is a bus driver and not taken in service for driving light vehicles. Since he has been fund unfit for driving heavy vehicles for which he was employed, he was rightly retired. He could not be directed to be deputed to drive light vehicles. The respondent has not guaranteed right to ask for being deputed to drive light vehicles. Moreover, there is no evidence that any post of the driver for driving light vehicle is available. Since admittedly the eye‑sight of the respondent is weak, not only the life and safety of the persons to be carried in the vehicle to be drived by the respondent will be in danger but even his own life is at stake. The learned lower Court failed to consider that the respondent did not prove that he had a guaranteed right to drive light vehicles instead of heavy buses Und thus fell in error in directing that the respondent should be deputed to drive light vehicle.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the order of retirement of the respondent is revived.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer