Hi, It could be relevant, there are a few cases on this subject:
In Aspden a PHI policy provided that employees who were wholly incapacitated from working by sickness or injury would receive three quarters of their salary until death or retirement, provided only that they remained in the company’s employment. The High Court held that there was an implied contractual term to the effect that the employer would not terminate the contract while the employee was incapacitated for work and could qualify for benefits under the policy, except in the event of gross misconduct
In Hill v General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation plc, the Court of Session considered an argument by an employee, relying on Aspden, that it was an implied term of the parties’ contract that the employer would not use its contractual powers of dismissal (in this case for redundancy) where this would frustrate an accruing or accrued entitlement under the sickness benefit or ill-health retirement pension scheme such that the employee would not be dismissed from his employment while incapacitated except for a summary dismissal by the employer by reason of his fundamental breach of contract. The Court of Session considering Aspden rejected the implied term argued by the employee and disagreed with any general proposition that gross misconduct was the only circumstance in which an employer could lawfully dismiss an employee in receipt of sick pay and with the prospect of permanent sickness provision. It also noted that Aspden had not considered the possibility of genuine redundancy dismissal.
Also, in Lloyd v BCQ Ltd the employee (who had been dismissed for ill-health) argued that where a PHI scheme was in existence, there was an implied term that the employer would not dismiss an employee who was in receipt of those benefits while the employee was incapacitated from work where the effect would be to disqualify the employee from receiving the benefits. The EAT found that, on the facts, Mr Lloyd did not have a contractual entitlement to PHI and that there was no scope for implying a term where there was an express term entitling the employer to dismiss.
So as you can see there is n direct answer and the courts do appear to reach different decisions and each one will depend on the specific facts so until you go to court you would not know if your situation would be covered.