1991 PLP 672 (PLC(CS))

(1) Monthly Earned wages for August 1985 Rs. 1,018.00 (2) Lumpsum amount in respect of 180 leaves Rs. 5,073.65 (3) G.P.Fund ... ... Rs. 5,883.00 (4) Gratuity ... ... Rs. 27,720.00 (5) Group Insurance ... Rs. 40,000.00 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Rs. 77,694.65 I ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ This order of the learned Authority was set aside by the learned Labour Court vide an appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, dated 12‑11‑1989. The applicant has now moved this revision application praying that this Tribunal may in exercise of its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 38(3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the said order of the learned Labour Court and pass suitable order.

2. I have heard Mr. Ahsanul Haq Siddiqi, the learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Ishaq, Labour Officer for the respondents, and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. It is not disputed that the deceased was a workman employed with the respondents nor his dues have been specifically disputed. The only question that requires consideration is whether applicant had any right to claim these dues. The applicant admittedly is not‑ the natural legal heir of the deceased workman as she is not his daughter. It has come in the cross‑examination of Zafar Abbas, the father of the applicant through whom she has filed this claim that the deceased was his brother‑in‑law and first cousin. The applicant based her claim on three documents. Annexure `A' to the application is a Heirship Certificate issued by Mukhtiarkar, dated 28‑9‑1985, wherein Mst. Wasim Zohra, Mst. Saeeda Zafar and Mst. Haseen Zafar, all daughters of Zafar Abbas are shown as heirs of the deceased workman. This certificate apparently is based on the alleged will of the deceased which is dated 25‑8‑1985, wherein he has named above 3 girls as his heirs and beneficiaries under the Will. It may be pointed that deceased Abdul Sami had expired on 1‑9‑1985 vie., about 6 days after the execution of the alleged Will. It may also be pointed that the 2 witnesses, namely, Aziz Ahmad and Abdul Hameed in whose presence the Will is said to have been executed have not been examined and the Will has not been filed for probate before the competent Court. As such no claim can be filed on the basis of this Will. In the Nomination Form, Exh. 6 which has been produced by respondents one Mst. Wasim Zohra has been shown as nominee, but, she has been shown as a daughter of Nominator. This nomination form does not show that Mst. Wasim Zohra daughter of Zafar Abbas had been nominated to receive the benevolent funds and group insurance. Even otherwise the applicant in her application had not claimed any dues on the basis of this nomination. Mukhttiarkar has no power to issue any heirship certificate which powers are vested in the competent Courts under Successions Act.

4. Under section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, the Provincial Government may, by notification in the official Gazette appoint any Commissioner for workmen's compensation or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages; or non‑payment of dues relating to provident fund or gratuity payable under any law." It will be seen that Group Insurance is not included in the claims which the Authority, appointed under section 15 is empowered to hear and decide. The Group Insurance is payable under Standing Order 10‑B of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Under clause (5) of this Standing Order 10‑B; 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. No doubt, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was also Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act and had signed the orders as Authority and Commissioner, but the application for claim was preferred in the Court of Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and not before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. As such the Authority had no jurisdiction to award any dues with regard to Group Insurance. Besides under Workmen's Compensation Act, amount of compensation could be distributed only upon the dependents and dependant has been defined under section 2(1)(d) of the said Act, as under:‑ "2(1)(d) `dependent' means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely‑‑‑ (i) a widow, minor legitimate son and unmarried legitimate daughter, or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, a widower, a parent other than a widowed mother, a minor illegitimate son and unmarried illegitimate daughter, a daughter legitimate or illegitimate if married and a minor or if widowed, a minor brother an unmarried or widowed sister, a widowed daughter‑in‑law, a minor child of a deceased son, a minor child of a deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive or where no parent of the workman is alive a paternal‑grand parent." It will be seen that the applicant does not come within the definition of `dependent' to claim any payment under the said Act.

5. In view of the above factual and legal position, I find nothing illegal with the order of the learned Labour Court to warrant any interference by this Tribunal in the exercise of its powers under section 38(3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./1741/Lb. S Application dismissed.