1. DECISION Through this decision I intend to dispose of Appeal No. KAR-37/2011 as preferred by the appellant worker namely Muhammad Ahmed Khan against the decision passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dated 28.5.2010 by which the grievance petition # 220 of 2009 under Section 41 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed with the establishment of Respondent # 2 as RTG Crane Operator Since 2002. During the course of employment appellant suffered with eye disease, therefore, he was referred to Eye Specialist Mr. Jawed Hassan Niazi, Consultant Ophthalmologist and Eye Surgeon who diagnosed Cataract Glaucoma and performed operation of left eye on 21.01.2009.
3. On recovery appellant resumed his duties and performed the same, so he was paid for the months of February and March, 2009. Thereafter, he was again 'referred to the same Eye Surgeon who advised for three months rest. On such advise appellant was directed to take rest by the Incharge, so when the salary for the month of April, 2009 was paid to him which shows the.deduction of Rs.
4. 14,803/-. On 21.4.2009 said doctor issued him fitness certificate, so he again applied for resumption of duties, but he has not been allowed duties. On such refusal appellant sent notice through his advocate on 27.6.2009 and detailed the irregularities committed by the management, same was replied and all the averments were denied by the management. On 2nd September, 2009 appellant received letter through which services of the appellant were terminated in view of the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon declaring the appellant as unfit for operating such heavy machine. Appellant served grievance notice which was replied on 09.10.2009 and the grievance appellant was not redressed, therefore, he filed grievance petition Bearing No. 220/2009 before learned Labour Court No. IV, Karachi. Respondent # 2 was served appeared and filed written statement. Besides other objections, Respondent # 2 have alleged that the services of the appellant were terminated as per Certificate issued by the Medical Board constituted by the Civil Surgeon according to law, as the Board has declared him unfit for operating such machine.
5. Appellant filed his affidavit in evidence and appeared in the witness box and whereas on behalf of Respondent # 2 Humayun Nazir, General Manager, Human Resources and Admin, appeared in the witness box. After evidence, learned Labour Court has given its findings on the two issues i.e. whether the petition is not maintainable under the law and whether the petitioner is entitled for relief claimed?
6. Both issues are inter-link, as such, the learned Labour Court discussed the same as a single point.
7. I have heard both learned Representative and Counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings and written synopsis submitted by both the parties and I have concurred the findings of the learned Labour Court, as because the reason given in the termination letter is explicit and genuine and the same were not shaken during the course of cross-examination or evidence. For the purpose of the same the contents of the termination are reproduced as under:-- Due to your ailment, you were referred to Civil Surgeon medical examination and opinion.
8. The management is in receipt of Letter No. 1185, dated 29th August, 2009 from the office of the Civil Surgeon attaching medical certificate issued by the Board which after your personal examination have opined and certified you to be medically "unfit" for operating heavy machines.
9. For the aforesaid reason, your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect on close of 2nd September, 2009 on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice and you also stand relieved.
10. You are advised to hand -over all company property in your possession, including QITC Security Pass, with immediate effect, and collect your dues, if any, from our pay roll section, on production of separation check list, duly completed and signed by the respective departments."
11. The reason as given in the termination letter is very clear, simple and unambiguous, as the worker admittedly undergone an eye surgery, advised rest for three months, and thereafter examined by the Medical Board duly constituted at the request of the employer and appellant was examined and his signatures were appeared on the certificate issued by the such Medical Board. Admittedly, no objection was taken on the part of the appellant either to the constitution of Medical Board, construction of Medical Board or to the report of the Medical Board. It means that, he is in agreement with the Medical Board, so how he can challenge the same.
12. As per reasons given in the termination letter are in consonance with the provisions of Standing Order 12 (1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 therefore, I find nothing to interfere in the findings of the learned Labour Court, which are now accordingly maintained and appeal is dismissed in limine.