1976 PLP 22 (PLC)

This is an appeal against the order dated 25.3‑1974 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Lyallpur awarding compensation of Rs. 8,000 to Zakir Manzur Hussain on account of the death of his son, Zia Hussain deceased.

2. The deceased was an employee of the Premier Cloth Mills Ltd, Lyallpur and on account of illness he died on 23‑12‑1973. Zakir Manzur Hussain, father of Zia Hussain deceased, claimed group insurance amounting to Rs. 8,000 on the basis of his pay @ Rs.130 p.m. under Standing Order 10‑B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation accepted the petition and awarded the sum as prayed for.

3. Aggrieved by that order the Vice‑President, Premier Cloth Mills Ltd, Lyallpur filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Lyallpur on 23‑4‑1974. The Addl. District Judge vide his order dated 8‑1‑1915 sent the appeal to the Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lyallpur as he had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The Labour Court vide order dated 29‑3‑1975 returned the appeal to the appellant for filing it before the Tribunal. When the said order was announced, the appellant's counsel, Ch. Fazal Din, Advocate was present. In spite of that the appellant applied for a certified copy of the said order on 27‑5‑1975 and obtained it on the same day. After that the appeal was filed before me on 9‑6‑1975. From the above I find that the appeal has been going from one Court to another on account of gross negligence on the part of the appellant. Mr. Javed Altaf, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, however, contended that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and as such nullity in law, and therefore the appellate authority could entertain and decide it on merits even the time barred appeal against such an order. In support of his; contention he relied on the judgment of the High Court in the case, Syed Mahmud Alam v. Syed Mehdi Hussain and 2 others (1).

4. Now the point for determination is as to whether the impugned order dated 25‑3‑1974 of the learned Commissioner was without jurisdiction. In this connection it will be proper to reproduce Standing Order l0‑B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 which reads as follows: ‑ Compulsory Group Insurance.‑( P L D 1970 Lab. 6) The employer shall have all the permanont workmen employed by him insured against death and injury arising out of contingencies not covered by the workmen's Compensation Act. 1923 (VIII of 1923), or the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (W. P. Ordinance No. X of 1965). (2) The employer shall in all case be responsible for the payment of then amount of premise and for all administrative arrangements whether carried out by himself or through an insurance company. (3) The amount for which each workman shall be insured shall not be less than the amount of compensation specified in Schedule IV to then Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1933). (4) Where the employer fails to have a permanent workmen employed by him insured in the manner laid down in clauses (1), (2) and (3) and such workman suffers death or injury arising out of contingencies mentioned in clause (1) the employer shall pay, in the case of death to the heirs of such workman, or in the case of injury to the workman such sum of money as would have been payable by the insurance: company had such workman been insured. (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). According to subsection (5) of the aforementioned Standing Order it is clear that the recovery of money under the said order shall be settled inc the same manner as is provided for the determination and recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does not contemplate that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act has jurisdiction to entertain such an application. It only means that the determination and recovery of compensation would be settled in the same manner as is provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The proper, course for the respondent was to have filed the application for the recovery of the amount mentioned in his claim under section 25‑A of Industrial. Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Junior Labour Court for the redress of his grievance in respect of a right guaranteed or secured to him by or under Standing Order 10‑8 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial a Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1958. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had no jurisdiction whatever to entertain the application. Therefore the impugned order was clearly without jurisdiction and as such was nullity in law.

5. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner and dismiss the original petision filed by the respondent. No order as to costs.