' This appeal is directed against the decision dated 28th November, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, .Rawalpindi, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The facts are that the services of the respondent were terminated on 31st December, 1979 for the reason that he was suffering from asthama, was a patient of blood pressure and was addicted to opium. Reliance was placed by the appellant on medical certificate Exh. R. I obtained from a doctor engaged by the appellant for medical examination of the employee. The above-mentioned diseases are mentioned in the said certificate. The respondent produced medical certificate Exh. P- 4 of another doctor.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the certificate Exh. R-4 could not be relied upon by the learned lower Court since the doctor who issued it was not examined even though an objection had been raised when the document was admitted in evidence. He has cited 1980 PLC 269, PLD 1973 SC 160 and 1980 PLC 598. The basic ruling is PLD 1973 SC 160 and it was followed in the other two rulings. In cases where an objection has been raised that the documents should not be tendered in evidence in Labour cases without the examination of the author, the examination of the author is necessary. In the present case objection was raised, therefore, the doctor should have been produced to prove Exh. P-4. As it was not done. P-4 has no evidentiary value. But even if certificate Exh. R-1 is relied upon, it is only a general opinion. The certificate does not suggest that any X-ray of chest and E. C. G. Test were got taken, without X-ray of chest no definite opinion about infection of lungs can be detected. Mere blood pressure in old age without any heart infirmity is not very much alarming. Opium above certain quantity is poison. This drug becomes part of the body of the person adicted of it, and if he does not take a done of opium, it will cause hinderance in his working and the person will not be in a position to perform his daily persuits. No report of neglect of work or inefficient working of the respondent was produced. If he had been incapable of discharging his duties, his immediate boss would have reported against him and if there had been any adverse report, the appellant would not have missed to bring it on the file. Mere ailment is not sufficient for the termination of services unless it has B considerably reduced the working capacity of the sufferer. In the circumstances of the case, the learned lower Court rightly directed the reinstatement of the respondent in service.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.