1978 PLP 266 (PLC)
AKHTAR ZAMAN Versus MESSERS DILAWAR BROTHERS KARACHI
| Citation | 1978 PLP 266 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AKHTAR ZAMAN Versus MESSERS DILAWAR BROTHERS KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 266 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 266 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 266 (PLC) (AKHTAR ZAMAN Versus MESSERS DILAWAR BROTHERS KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sabir Hussain Rehman for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Abdul Qadir for Appellant Sabir Hussain Rehman for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st August 1977 This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act reviewing his previous order.
2. The appellant was in the employment of the respondent and he received an injury during the course of his employment while performing his duties. He approached the Commissioner under the Workmen's Com pensation Act on the basis of a medical certificate showing the Permanent Partial Disability to the extent of 25 %. Although. this case has a chequered history but the facts have been fully stated in the impugned order, 1, there fore, confine myself to the point involved in the present case.
3. The record shows that the learned Commissioner had passed an order on 6th December 1976 awarding Rs. 5,032 as compensation after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. No appeal was filed by either party against this order.
4. Subsequently an application purported to be under section 151, C. P. C. was made by the respondent for vacating the aforesaid order. After hearing the arguments the order was vacated and the impugned amount of compensation was reduced to Rs. 2,
000. Aggrieved by this, present appeal had been filed.
5. It has been urged before me by the learned counsel for the appellant that the application which was purported to have been made under section 151, C. P. C. was, in fact, an application for review of the previous order, and the learned Commissioner was not invested with any power of review and, therefore, his order was illegal and without jurisdiction on the very face of it. I fully agree with this contention. There is nothing in the Compensation Act investing the Commissioner with the power of review. There Is already a decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan that power of review cannot be exercised unless It has been conferred by the statute. The learned counsel for the respondent has not succeeded in controverting the contention raised on behalf of the appellant.
6. In result I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the ltg4rned Commissioner and restore his previous order.