DECISION The petitioner's appeal has arisen in the following circumstances:
2. He was appointed by the respondents, a Shipping Company, as a Junior Electrical Engineer in November, 1974 and was promoted as Electrical Engineer on 1-6-1989. He had a heart attack at Jeddah on 7-8-1989 and was repatriated to Karachi where he underwent a Bypass Operation. He was declared by the Doctors as unfit for sea service but the certificate added that "he may do light duties at shore". This certificate was given by Dr. Shareef on 19-8-1990. However, his services came to be terminated on 27-11-1990.
The letter reads as under: "We refer to your applications dated 6-10-1990 and 17-11-1990, we have already advised you that we have no shore job in our office. We, therefore, do not understand what further advice you require from us. You have been declared unfit for sea service as such stand relieved from our service.
You are advised to apply to. Trustees Staff Provident Fund for settlement of your dues."
He had thereafter served a grievance notice on 20-12-1990 which was replied to which inter alia has following to say: "As per your entitlement you were allowed leave with pay/without pay for the period of your illness and thereafter. Since you were declared unfit for sea service for which you were being specifically appointed, we having no light duty as a Shipping Company at shore in our Head Office or elsewhere, your services were accordingly terminated effective 27-1-1990."
3. The petition followed before the Labour Court.
4. The petitioner was his own witness and MA. Waheed, Commercial Officer of the respondent- Company appeared on behalf of the respondents.
5. According to SA. Waheed, the Electrical Engineer is the Incharge of a Electrical Department of the ship. Under him there is one Junior Electrical Engineer, three Electricians, Winch Men and five Fire Men. The job of the Electrical Engineer is to direct, supervise and control the work of the Electrical Department. According to him repair work used to be done by the staff under his control and he had only to supervise it. These facts were not controverted. All that was suggested in the examination was that the Winch Man and the Fire Man were not under his control.
6. There can be no dispute with the contention of Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Khan that the designation or the pay of Rs.7,000 per month by itself will not determine the status of the appellant as an Officer exercising supervisory authority. However, it is clearly made out that there were others to attend to the day to day affairs of the ship during the voyages. I agree with the finding of the Labour Court that he was not a workman. That is enough to dispose of the appeal but a word may be said on merits also.
7. The appellant has worked with the respondents for a long period and had been lately promoted.
Admittedly the heart attack which he had suffered at Jeddah had rendered him unfit for any onerus duty. According to the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Shareef a renowned Specialist he could attend to only light duties on shore. The respondents' case is that they have no light duty to offer. The statement of MA. Waheed has not been challenged on that score. Anyway an employer cannot be compelled under the law to find an alternative job elsewhere. Further, it cannot even remotely be imagined that there was any colourable exercise of authority or victimisation in the circumstances of the case.
8. It is true that there is no offer of a month's salary and the due outstanding but evidence showed, and it is not denied that some loan had been taken by the appellant. Any way that by itself would not make the order of termination invalid. (See Road Transport Corporation, Lahore v. Sher Muhammad 1971 PLC 212 and Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Hayat Khan 1983 PLC 401).
9. In the result I will uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.