1993 PLP 391 (PLC)
SAID CLINIC, KARACHI Versus Mst. NAEEMA JAMSHED
| Citation | 1993 PLP 391 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SAID CLINIC, KARACHI Versus Mst. NAEEMA JAMSHED |
| Primary Law | Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 391 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 391 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 391 (PLC) (SAID CLINIC, KARACHI Versus Mst. NAEEMA JAMSHED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmed for Appellant.
- Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th October, 1992,
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 22 & 30‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Widow of deceased employee, through her application laid various claims of deceased with regard to 'his salary, bonus, gratuity and group insurance‑‑‑On objection of employer that his clinic in which deceased was working was not a commercial establishment, application of widow was dismissed by Commissioner, but order of Commissioner was set aside by Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑On filing Constitutional petition against order of Tribunal, High Court remanded case to Labour Court to decide the case after examining witnesses‑‑‑Labour Court after examination of witnesses, allowed claim of widow to the extent of Group Insurance and other leave claim of deceased‑‑‑Appeal filed against order of Trial Court, was not competent as only such appeal could be filed against order of Commissioner which had been specified in S. 30 of the Act ‑‑‑Order of Trial Court did not fall within provisions of that section. Government of Sindh through Executive Engineer, Feeder Division v. Mst. Zohra Begum and others 1981 PLC 490, M/s. 'Olympia Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Syed Shah 1981 PLC 685, Karachi Transport Corporation v. Moula Bux and another 1981 PLC 844, Shermat Khan v. M/s. Shabina Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi 1982 PLC 603, State Life Insurance corporation Ltd. v. Mst. Khatoon and others 1975 PLC 777 and M/s. Afzal stores Ltd. v. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and others 1982 PLC .i41 ref.
Judgment & Decree
1968 for three years. Rs.9,000 (4) 10 months gratuity for 14 years and Rs.30,000 over six months services at the rate of 20 days salary for each year of service. (5) The amount of Group Insurance under 10‑B, S.O. Ordinance, 1968. Rs.15,000
3. The claim came to be resisted and one of the objections taken was that the application was incompetent as the respondent's clinic was not a commercial establishment. The objection was upheld and the application was dismissed on that score alone.
4. This led to an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the order was set aside. A Constitution petition was thereupon filed challenging this order. The case was remanded to the Labour Court on the ground that questions of fact and law were involved and no evidence had been led in the case. It was therefore remanded. It was thereafter that the witnesses were examined and the impugned order was passed allowing only the claims of Group Insurance in the sum of Rs.45,000 and Rs.2,000 towards the other leaves.
5. An objection was raised by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal did not lie at all, as only such appeals could be filed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation which have been specified under section 30 thereof namely: "
30. Appeal (1) An appeal shall lie to the Tribunal from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:‑ (a) An order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half‑monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half‑monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependents of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependent. (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provision of subsection (2) of section 12; or (e) An order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:" He has also referred decisions in cases of Government of Sindh through Executive Engineer, Feeder Division v. Mst. Zohra Begum and others 1981 PLC 490, M/s. Olympia Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Syed Shah 1981 PLC 685, Karachi Transport Corporation v. Moula Bux and another 1981 PLC 844, Shermat Khan v. M/s. Shabina Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi 1982 PLC 603, State Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Mst. Khatoon and others 1975 PLC
777. These are all decisions from this Tribunal and this has been the consistent view all along as will be seen from the reference made in the judgments. He has also referred to a judgment of our High Court namely M/s. Afzal Stores Ltd. v. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and, others 1982 PLC 641, in which the same view had been taken. This being the state of law; nothing having been said to the contrary the objection must prevail.
6. I will, therefore, dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2145/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.