This appeal arises from the decision dated 31-8-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, wereby the services of the respondent were terminated on, the payment of one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice.
2. The facts are that the appellant was initially appointed as Sugar Coater on 16-I1-1977 vide appointment letter Exh. R-1. Thereafter he was transferred to stores to do the work of loading and unloading which he had been doing till the time of his termination. In the month of December, 1981 the doctor advised him to do light duty as he was a heart patient. He on 9-12-1981 applied for light duty but he was on 14-12-1981 asked to resign as there was no light duty, otherwise his services would be terminat--ed. Since he did not resign he was terminated vide order Exh. R-3 dated 23-12- 1981. According to the respondent, the post of sugar coater held by . The appellant was abolished, therefore, he was on his request transferred to, stores instead of being terminated. No doubt, there is no written order of abolition of post of sugar coater and the order of transfer of the appellant to stores was produced but the subsequent conduct of the appellant shows that the contention of the respondent is correct. He worked in the stores for more than two years and admittedly did not com--plain to any authority, nor challenged the transfer. .Loading and unloading of goods is A heavy manual job but the appellant after his transfer quietly performed this duty. This shows that the post of sugar coater had in reality been abolished and in order to be saved from termination.
The appellant was on his request detained on the duty of loading and unloading in the stores.
3. The services of the appellant had to be terminated, because lie being a heart patient, was not capable of doing the heavy work 'of loading and unloading. The plea that Medical Board for his examination should have been established is without force. If the respondent had been of the opinion that the appellant was a heart patient, of course, the appellant had to be satisfied by being examined by a medical board. The appellant himself medically examined from a social security doctor and on the latter's advice asked for light duty. Since there was no light duty, the respondent had to terminate his service. The case of the appellant is not that light work was available with the respondent. He insisted to be posted as sugar coater but this was not possible as the post held by him earlier had long been abolished. Since one month's pay .Was offered to him in lieu of one month's notice, the requirement of Standing Order 12 (1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was duly complied with. The order of termination was, therefore, proper and legal and unavoidable.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine.