1995 PLP 251 (PLC)
M/s. NAVEED IMPEX, KARACHI Versus Mst. SIDDIQA BEGUM and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP 251 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | M/s. NAVEED IMPEX, KARACHI Versus Mst. SIDDIQA BEGUM and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 251 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 251 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 251 (PLC) (M/s. NAVEED IMPEX, KARACHI Versus Mst. SIDDIQA BEGUM and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khurshid Ahmed Siddiqui for Appellants.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th January, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 10‑B‑‑‑Amount of group insurance‑‑‑Claim for‑‑‑Employee working in a factory of garments died in course of his employment due to T.B. of lungs which he contacted during his service and he died without treatment‑‑‑Labour Court found relationship of employer and employee between the parties‑‑ Ordinance (VI of 1968) was being applicable to case of employee compensation and group insurance was awarded to widow and children of deceased and employer was directed to deposit amount of award‑‑‑Employer having failed to produce any oral or documentary proof to establish his assertions against the employee, amount of group insurance was rightly awarded to widow and children of deceased employee.
Judgment & Decree
Khurshid Ahmed Siddiqui for Appellants. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th January, 1995. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, West Division, Karachi. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants "Naveed Garments Industries" were running a Garment Factory in S.I.T.E., Karachi, employing about 300 workers. On 22‑6‑1990 one of the workers Farhat Hussain s/o Fayyaz Hussain died in the course of employment. He was said to be working in the Weaving Department and he contacted T.B. of the lungs and died without any treatment. The widow Mst. Siddiqa Begum and her three sons applied for compensation dues and Group Insurance of the deceased. The learned Commissioner recorded the evidence of the widow and her witnesses but the respondents did not produce any defence evidence either oral or documentary. The learned Lower Court found that the relationship of employer and employee existed between the parties and that S.O. 10‑B of the Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable. He also found that the application was maintainable and the applicants were entitled to the dues payable to the deceased. He accordingly awarded Rs.30,000 as compensation and Group Insurance and Rs.54,570 as the dues and directed the respondent to deposit the said amount.
2. I have heard Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Siddiqui on behalf of Naveed Impex (Garment Industries Karachi). He has denied that there was any Garment Factory in existence at that time or now. He has also denied that deceased Farhat Hussain was an employee in his factory. Lastly he has denied that his factory if it existed, employed 50 or more workers and asserted that he was not therefore liable for payment of Group Insurance. He has not produced any oral or documentary evidence, even at this stage. He has merely made these assertions without supporting them by any proof. Even the record of the workers in the factory has not been produced at the appellate stage. The respondent Mst. Siddiqa Begum and her three sons have become untraceable and they cannot be found in spite of publication of notice. Under the circumstances it will not be fair to alter the decision of the lower Court merely on the assertion of the counsel for the appellants. I find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./2401/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.