1976 PLP 89 (PLC)

Rafiq Ahmadfor Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd December' 1975. This appeal has been filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation.

2. Jamshed Ali, the husband of the respondent was in the perma nent employment of the appellant. He died on 18th February 1974. The respondent claimed the amount from the appellant under the group insurance scheme but the appellant declined on the ground that the deceased was not insured. She, therefore, approached the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar and labour Welfare Officer, Hyderabad and some settlement was reached and an amount of Rs. 1,000 as first instalment was paid. Sub sequently, the respondent approached the Commissioner under the Work men's Compensation Act and claimed that although it was agreed that the appellant would pay the entire compensation under the group insurance scheme by instalments and although the first instalment of Rs. 1,000 was paid but the balance was not paid.

3. The appellant resisted the claim and raised various pleas that the application was not maintainable under the Workmen's Compensation Act that it was not in proper form that no court-fee was paid that the prayer of the applicant was vague that the deceased was not insured under the group insurance scheme and the amount of Rs. 1,007 was erroneously paid and the appellant was entitled to the refund of the amount.

4. On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed and evidence was led. The learned Commissioner rejected the pleas, which had been raised and awarded Rs. 9,000 as compensation in addition to the amount of Rs. 1,000 already paid. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant raised two points at the time of argument. He pleaded that there was non-compliance with the provision of section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as the various details as required by law were not given. It was further pleaded that although according to Standing Order 10-8 (1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, the appellant was bound to get the deceased insured under the croup insurance scheme but when the deceased had died there was no liability on the appellant to pay the compensation in case of defaults of obtaining the insurance as the amendment making the employer liable for compensation was effected on 10th September 1974 whereas the death took place on 18th February 1974 and the amendment could not be treated to be retrospective in its operation.

6. It is not necessary to deal with the objections raised on behalf of the appellant as in my view the order awarding the compensation is not appealable for the reason that it was passed under Standing Order No. 10 B of the Standing Orders Ordinance and not under the Workmen's Compensation Act as already held by me in another case Re: Daily Mashriq v. Mst. Rehmat Khatoon (Appeal No. WCK. 40 of 1975), decided on 23rd July 1975. Detailed reasons have already been given in that case and it is not necessary to reproduce them here.

7. Secondly, an application which was made by the respondent was not an application under section 19 or 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act but it was an application for implementation of the settlement which was already reached between the parties before the Commissioner recorded on 25th November 1974. It may be pointed out here that when the dispute had arisen between the parties the Labour Department seemed to have intervened and a settlement was reached whereby the appellant had agreed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation under the group insurance scheme to the respondent and out of this Rs. 1,000 were paid. The certified copy of the settlement has been produced. This concluded the matter and the appellant cannot be permitted to resile from the settlement and dispute the liability to pay the compensation. Even in this situation, the order as it stands now is not appealable.

8. In the result the appeal is dismissed.