P L D 1983 Supreme Court 398 (PLP)

S. A. NUSRAT, J.-The petitioner was appointed as Loading Time Keeper in the organization of the respondent on 15-12-1962 in which capacity he served up to I1-11-1975 when his services were terminated on the basis of a medical report due to total loss of eye-sight. The petitioner first served a notice dated 9-10-1977 on respondent asking them to pay the amount allegedly due to him under the Compulsory Group Insurance Scheme. As the amount was not paid, the petitioner made an application on 23-10-1977 under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with section 10-B of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, for payment of a lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000 on account of permanent, total disability, under the Compulsory Group Insurance Scheme. The said application was dismissed by the Labour Court Quetta, on 11-2-1979 on the ground that it was time-barred and the petitioner had no locus stand! to file the same. This order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner before the Labour Appellate Tribunal which was allowed on 28-4-1979 and the petitioner's application was held to be in time and the case was remanded to the Labour Court for decision on merits. The above order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was challenged by the respondent in a constitution petition in the Baluchistan High Court which was allowed as per impugned judgment dated 17-5-1982. By the said judgment i was held that the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercia Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable to the respondent organization and as such the petitioner was not entitled to his' claim under the Group Insurance Scheme and the petitioner's application unde section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, which was submitted t the Labour Cpurt on 23-10-1977, was time-barrod. The findings of the learned High Court are based on the interpretation of proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which reads as follows : "It applies to tuch classes of the industrial and commercial establishment as Government may, from time to time, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf Provided that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishment carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein." According to the learned High Court, since the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation had come into existence under the provisions of the Provincial Industrial Development Corporation (West Pakistan) Ordinance, 1962, which was the parent organization of the respondent, the provision, contained in the above proviso was satisfied inasmuch as the establishment of the respondent was carried on under the authority of the Federal Government. e It was also found by the learned High Court that since the Provincial Government had also framed rules for the employees of the Corporation known as the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation Service Rules 1964-65, the second requirement of the above proviso was also satisfied. Lastly it was held that the petitioner's application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was barred by time. The above findings of the learned High Court have been challenged in this petition. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proviso referred to above was not attracted to the case of the respondent whose management vested in a Board as provided in section 5 of the Provincial Industrial Development Corporation (West Pakistan) Ordinance, 1962, which reads as under : "5. Management.-(1) The general direction and administration of the Corporation and its affairs shall vest in the Board which may exercise all powers and do all acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (2) The Board in discharging its functions shall act on commercial consideration and shall be guided by such directions as the Government may give it from time to time. (3) If the Board fails to obey any direction as aforesaid, the Government may remove the Directors including the Chairman and, notwithstanding anything in section 6, appoint persons in their place to be Directors temporarily until fresh Directors are appointed under that section." As regards the question of limitation, it was contended that the period of limitation for filing of an applicatiod for recovery of a claim on account of compulsory group insurance was three years as provided in section 10(l) of the Workmen's Compensation Act which provision was attracted by virtue of clause (5) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which is as follows : "(5) All claims of a workman or his heirs for recovery of money under clause (4) shall be settled in the same manner as is provided for the determination and- recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923)." Reliance was placed by the learned counsel in support of his first contention on a judgment of the Sind High Court in National Shipping Corporation v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal (1). In the said judgment it was held that since the management of National Shipping Corporation (the . petitioner in that case) was vested in its Board which was to carry on its business as a body, the proviso to subsection (3) of section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, which is similar to the proviso referred to above, was not attracted. Both the above contentions raise questions of law of general public importance.. Accordingly, we grant leave to examine them. Security in th e sum of Rs. 500. The appeal will be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any. M. z. M.?????????????????????? Leave granted. ??????????? (1) P L D 1975 Kar. 274