1997 PLP 538 (PLC)

Raees M. Mushtaq for Appellant. Date of hearing: 14th October, 1996. This appeal arises from an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority Under ‑Payment ‑of Wages Act, Hyderabad directing Fauji Sugar Mills the appellant to pay the amount of Rs.1,25,000 the amount of Group Insurance payable by them to all permanent employees for permanent disability suffered by the respondent working in the Sugar Mills.

2. Respondent Sher Muhammad was permanently employed as a Coolie in the Sugar Mills on monthly wages of Rs.950 per month. The respondent met with an accident in the mills and suffered injury of displacement of his spinal cord disc. He was certified medically to be permanently unfit for any physical job and he was, therefore, relieved from his duties with effect from 10‑4‑1992.

3. Under section 1(4) proviso Standing Orders since the mill employed more than 50 workers, the mill had to get the workers insured under' the Group Insurance Scheme but the appellant Sugar Mill had not done so and in that case for violation of Order 10‑B the Group Insurance had to be paid by the Sugar Mills themselves as the Group Insurance was compulsory under (10‑B) subsection (2). The Commissioner for Payment of Wages Act, therefore, awarded Rs.1,25,000 to the respondent as the amount of Insurance money payable to the respondent for his remaining out of job for the rest of his life. Rs.42,000 had already been paid to the respondent by the management for the maximum disability as this injury suffered by the respondent had not been mentioned in the Schedule under Workmen's Compensation Act fixing quantum of damages.

4. It is now argued by Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq that since Rs.42,000 amount has already been paid to the workers, they are not required to make another payment under the Standing Orders for Group Insurance. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has pointed out that the benefits under the Standing Orders Ordinance 10‑B are entirely different from compensation for the injury under the Workmen's Compensation. One does not exclude the other. He has referred to a decision of Sindh High Court in S.R.T.C. case decided on 10‑5‑1989 though this decision does not appear to have been reported. This contingency of displacement of disc is also not mentioned specifically in the Workmen's Compensation Act or the amount of compensation provided. The Group Insurance is meant to cover the workmen's loss of employment for the rest of his life, apart from the injury suffered, otherwise the law would not have been made payment compulsory under the Group Insurance as well as under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was the duty of the management to get the worker insured and pay the premiums for such contingency but this was not done. Now they cannot escape liability by merely voluntary payment of Rs.42,000 for the injury suffered: No option is given to the employer to either pay under the Workmen's Compensation or to pay the amount of the Insurance which the Company would have paid under the Group Insurance Scheme. The first liability is under the Workmen's Compensation Act while the second liability is under 10‑B of the Standing Orders Ordinance. One does not exclude the other. There is no authority under which the amount paid under Workmen's Compensation can be deducted from the Group Insurance.

5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./197/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.