1978 PLP 418 (PLC)
HYDERABAD Versus BALAM
| Citation | 1978 PLP 418 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rosool Shaikh. Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | HYDERABAD Versus BALAM |
| Primary Law | DECISION |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 418 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: DECISION as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 418 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rosool Shaikh. Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 418 (PLC) (HYDERABAD Versus BALAM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Ishrat All Baig for Appellant
- L. M. Shardha for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th May 1977.
Headnotes / Summary
Workmen's Compensation Act (VII of 1923) ‑‑ S. 30‑Appeal‑Maintainable only on question of law‑Contention before Commissioner that Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was not applicable‑Matter depending upon documentary evidence‑Com missioner rejecting some documents and rejecting the contention‑ Decision of Commissioner in circumstances, held, based upon. facts hence not appeal able. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act awarding compensation to the respondent.
2. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant and sus tained an injury in the course of his employment while performing his duties. He approached the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for compensa tion as the appellant had refused to give the compensation. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the factory owned by the appellant, was covered by the Shop & Establishment Ordinance and therefore the Workmen's Compensation Act was not applicable and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner was barred. .
3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Commissioner rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant and awarded the compensation. Aggrieved by‑ thief the present appeal had been filed.
4. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I See no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the learned Commissioner and the award of compensation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant failed to point out that any question of law was involved in order to give jurisdiction to this Tribunal to interfere with the impugned order. He based his arguments simply on questions of fact against which no appeal lies. It cannot be said that there was no evidence supporting the conclusion reached by the learned Commissioner. He rightly held, on the basis of the evidence, which had been produced, that the Workmen's Compensation Act was applicable and the compensation could be granted. There is no substance in the allegation the learned counsel for the appellant that certain documents which were produced by the appellant were not considered. The Order clearly shown that all the documents we considered and their effect was fully taken into consideration. He reject documents as unreliable and I see no reason to disagree with him.
5. In result the appeal is dismissed, stay stands discharged and the amount be paid to the respondent.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 30‑Appeal‑Maintainable only on question of law‑Contention before Commissioner that Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was not applicable‑Matter depending upon documentary evidence‑Com missioner rejecting some documents and rejecting the contention‑ Decision of Commissioner in circumstances, held, based upon. facts hence not appeal able. Mirza Ishrat All Baig for Appellant L. M. Shardha for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th May 1977. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act awarding compensation to the respondent.
2. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant and sus tained an injury in the course of his employment while performing his duties. He approached the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for compensa tion as the appellant had refused to give the compensation. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the factory owned by the appellant, was covered by the Shop & Establishment Ordinance and therefore the Workmen's Compensation Act was not applicable and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner was barred. .
3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Commissioner rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant and awarded the compensation. Aggrieved by‑ thief the present appeal had been filed.
4. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I See no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the learned Commissioner and the award of compensation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant failed to point out that any question of law was involved in order to give jurisdiction to this Tribunal to interfere with the impugned order. He based his arguments simply on questions of fact against which no appeal lies. It cannot be said that there was no evidence supporting the conclusion reached by the learned Commissioner. He rightly held, on the basis of the evidence, which had been produced, that the Workmen's Compensation Act was applicable and the compensation could be granted. There is no substance in the allegation the learned counsel for the appellant that certain documents which were produced by the appellant were not considered. The Order clearly shown that all the documents we considered and their effect was fully taken into consideration. He reject documents as unreliable and I see no reason to disagree with him.
5. In result the appeal is dismissed, stay stands discharged and the amount be paid to the respondent.