DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order, dated 23-12-1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, under section 25-A , I.R.O. , 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was a permanent workman of the respondent Establishment since 15-7-1966 and was regularised in service, as such, vide order, dated 11-1-1983.
Thereafter, the respondent was required to produce fitness certificate from the Civil Surgeon. The respondent presented himself before the Civil Surgeon, Shikarpur, who issued him a fitness certificate, but, it was not accepted by the respondent and was compelled to get himself examined by the Civil Surgeon, Sukkur, who subsequently declared him "unfit" for service. The respondent, however, again got himself examined by the Civil Surgeon, Jacobabad, who had also declared him 'fit for service', but, the respondents did not consider these two fitness certificates and mainly followed the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sukkur, declaring the respondent 'unfit for service' and thus, his services were terminated', vide letter, dated 22-12-1983.
3. The appellants Establishment resisted the petition and submitted that tale respondent was working as Moulder since 19-7-1966 and was removed from service on 15-2-1971 on account of general retrenchment, but he was again taken on duty on 3-2-1972. That, vide letter, dated 11-1- 1983, the respondent was required to produce his medical fitness certificate from the concerned Civil Surgeon, and after examination, the Civil Surgeon Sukkur had opined that the respondent was suffering from the disease, which was considered to be a disqualification of an employment, therefore, the services of the respondent were rightly terminated and that the respondent was never referred to the Civil Surgeon of Shikarpur and Jacobabad for medical examination.
4. Both the parties filed affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court , thereafter had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent and directed his re-instatement in service with full back benefits, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Ali Akbar Shah, Agricultural Engineer on behalf of the appellants Establishment.
Mr. .S. Abdur Rehman's, Advocate for the appellants not present. I have also heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record and proceedings of the case. The only point to be determined in the present appeal is whether the termination of services of the respondent was proper and legal. It is an admitted position that the respondent was required to produce Medical Fitness Certificate from the concerned Civil Surgeon.
The respondent clearly and specifically had stated that when he approached the Civil Surgeon Sukkur for his medical examination, the said Civil Surgeon did not examine him without payment of illegal gratification and on his refusal to make such payment, he was declared 'unfit for service'.
The appellants Establishment had failed to produce this Civil Surgeon to rebut this serious charge of the respondent against him. Further, there is an admitted position that the appellants Establishment had also miserably failed to examine this Civil Surgeon to explain the nature of disease as per contents of the Medical Certificate, declaring him 'unfit for service'. The respondent was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine this Civil Surgeon about the mode of medical examination, nature of disease and the reasons of the opinion. Simple production of a Medical Certificate, without examining the issuing Doctor to corroborate its contents and also in view of the fact that a serious charge of demanding illegal gratification was levelled by the respondent, cannot be relied upon. There is no reason on record why the two similar opinions of two Civil Surgeons of the same status, as of the Civil Surgeon of Shikarpur, declaring the respondent 'fit for service', were ignored and rejected by the appellants Establishment, before terminating the services of the respondent. The best course with the appellants Establishment, was either to get constituted a Medical Board consisting on well-qualified and highly experienced Doctors and to seek its expert opinion before deciding to terminate the services of the respondent on medical ground; or to put the Civil Surgeon Sukkur into witness-box for examination and cross--- examination in support of the Medical Certificate, issued by him declaring the ,respondent 'unfit for service'. In the absence of these legal and mandatory requirements, this vague and stereotype medical certificate, issued by the Civil Surgeon Sukkur cannot be the basis for termination of services of the respondent, therefore, such termination is liable to be set aside. I hold it accordingly.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would dismiss this appeal. The respondent is directed to be re-instated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits, deposited by the appellants Establishment in this Tribunal, be paid to the respondent, Mehboob Khan, after due verification.
M. Y. H./904/Lb.