1990 PLP 743 (PLC)

This is an appeal brought under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, challenging the order dated 31‑10‑1988 recorded by the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act, whereby the application of the respondent for group insurance amount and other dues was accepted to the extent of group insurance amount, directing the appellant to deposit Rs.30,000.

2. The facts of the case are that while the son of the respondent namely Asif Hussain was working at his machine, his co‑worker namely Muhammad Iqbal pushed him, as a result of which he fell on the working machine and was injured which later on resulted m. his death in the hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that group insurance amount under section 10‑B of the Standing Order, Ordinance, 1968 can be claimed in cases where death and injury does not arise out of the contingencies covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923 or Provincial Social Security Ordinance, 1965. Making reference to section 2(10) of the Social Security Ordinance, learned counsel has argued that since the injury caused to the deceased was an `employment injury', the survivors of the deceased were entitled to the pension. The term `employment injury' is defined in section 2(10) of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 which reads as under:‑‑ 'employment injury' means a personal injury to a secured person caused by an accident or by such occupational disease as may be specified in the regulations, arising out of and in the course of his employment.' There is no dispute between the parties if the deceased was secured under the Social Security Ordinance. The only thing therefore to be seen is whether the injury falls within the definition of `employment injury'. According to the definition of the term reproduced above, injury caused by an accident is employment injury. An accident takes place by unvoluntary and unintentional acts, such as if the machine at which a victim is working suddenly collapses or unintentionally some part of the body of the victim is entangled with the machine and the victim receives injury, it would be accidental. Likewise, if some part of the body touches the working machine without the intention of the victim it would be called an accident In cases where by any intentional act of the victim or of any other person the victim is injured by the machinery it would not be a mere accident. For example, if a worker knows that if his hand touches the moving part of the machinery, it will be injured and he intentionally touches that part and receives injury, that will not be an accident. In the present case Muhammad Iqbal pushed the deceased, as a result of which the deceased was injured by the machinery. Muhammad Iqbal was co‑worker of the deceased and thus can be presumed to know that the deceased while falling on the machinery would in all probabilities receive injury. This is not the case of the parties that not by push given by Muhammad Iqbal but in some other manner and due to some other cause the deceased fell upon the machinery. Suppose, Muhammad Iqbal wanted to capture the deceased and the deceased in order to avoid the capture retreated and thus fell upon the machinery, then there would have been neither any intention on the part of Muhammad Iqbal nor on the part of the deceased to fall on the machine and to receive injury. The evidence is that Muhammad Iqbal had pushed the deceased while the deceased was working at the machinery. This is not an accident and thus the injury is not covered by the definition of `employment injury'. Section 10‑B of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, therefore, is applicable and since the appellant had not got the deceased insured, he was liable to pay compensation and the learned Commissioner, has rightly directed him to pay the same.

3. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. H.B.T./683/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.