1981 PLP 685 (PLC(CS))

This appeal is directed against an order made on 12th July, 1980, by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, East Division, holding that deceased Syed Ghafoor was a permanent employee of the appellants and that he died while he was in their employment, and accordingly, directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 15,000 being group insurance amount of the deceased.

2. The impugned order was passed on an application made by deceased Syed Ghafoor's brother, Syed Shah, to the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Standing Order 10‑B read with section 8(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, wherein it was claimed that deceased Syed Ghafoor was a workman employed by the appellants, that he died a natural death on 24th July 1978 and that his monthly wages at the time of his death were Its. 300.

3. Mr. Zamirul Hasan, the learned Representative for the appellants, assailed the impugned decision of the learned Commissioner for Work men's Compensation on the grounds.‑ (a) that deceased Syed Ghafoor being a temporary workman was not entitled to be insured under Standing Order 10‑B nor was the appellant liable in case of his non‑insurance to pay to his heirs any amount as group insurance ; and (b) that it has not been established that Syed Ghafoor died a natural death or, in fact, has died.

4. In support of his contention Mr. Zamirul Hassan relied upon the order of appointment of deceased Syed Ghafoor which appears at page 22 of the record of the learned Commissioner. Paragraph 2 of the said appointment order specifically provides that: Syed Ghafoor was being employed purely on a temporary basis on trial for a period of three months and after the expiry of the said period he would be confirmed. The learned Representative argued that since, as per the said appointment order, Syed Ghafoor was appointed with effect from 2nd May, 1978, on trial basis for a period of three months and according to the application made to the learned Commissioner and the evidence adduced on behalf of his brother, Syed Shah, that the deceased is said to have met his death on 24th July, 1978 the deceased had not completed three months of service with the appellant when he is supposed to have met with his death and hence he cannot be considered to be a permanent workman. As under Standing Order 10‑B only permanent workmen are required to be compul sorily insurance by the employer there was no liability on the part of the appellant to ensure deceased Abdul Ghafoor under the said Standing Order.

5. There would also appear to be force in the contention of Mr. Zamirul Hassan that there is no tangible proof regarding the death or at least the manner of death of Syed Ghafoor. As already pointed out in the petition before the learned Commissioner, the respondent Syed Shah has simply stated that his brother, Syed Ghafoor, died a natural death on 24th July, 1978. However, in his evidence before the learned Commissioner recorded on 28th January, 1.979, he stated that the deceas ed Syed Ghafoor died by drowning in floods near Landhi and that post mortem examination was conducted on his dead body by a doctor and that he could produce the post‑mortem report which was with him. How ever, in his subsequent examination before the learned Commissioner on 27th February, 1979, he stated that no post‑mortem report was available with him and in fact no post‑mortem was held in respect of the deceased.

6. In support of his contention that deceased Syed Ghafoor died by drowning near Landhi on 24th July, 1978, respondent Syed Shah produced before the learned Commissioner the certificate from the Birth and Death Register of the K. M. C. The certificate, no doubt, supports the conten tion of the respondent, Syed Shah, but the correctness of the entries in the Births and Deaths Register have been greatly jeopardised by the admission of witness Muhammad Ishaq, the incharge of the Births and Deaths Section, Korangi Landhi Zone of the K. M. C., who admitted that when he took over charge of this post on 24th April, 1979, a number of serial numbers in the register were found by him to be blank. He conceded that it was quite possible to subsequently fill up these blanks by making entries of births and deaths therein.

7. Another circumstance which casts doubt on the issue whether Syed Ghafoor in fact is dead, and if so, in what manner and where he died is the alleged certificate dated 4th August 1978, from the Incharge Police Post, Dhabijee, that Syed Ghafoor son of Muhammad died by drown ing on 24th July, 1978. The present incharge of Dhabijee Police Station was summoned and shown this certificate but he not only denied that any report of the death of Syed Ghafoor was made or recorded at the Dhabijee police station in the months of July or August but that further the signature on the certificate did not appear to be of A. S. I, Dilawar, who was the incharge of Dhabijee police station at that time. In view of this conflicting and unsatisfactory evidence, I am inclined to agree with the contention of Mr. Zamirul Hassan that there is no tangible evidence either as to the date of the death of Syed Ghafoor, if he has died and as to the manner or place of his death.

8. Mr. S. N. Kohistani, on behalf of the respondent, however, raised a fatal objection as to the maintainability of the present appeal. He contended that no appeal lies to this Tribunal against a decision of the learned Commissioner under Standing Order 10‑B. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision by this Tribunal in the case of General Tyre of Rubber Co. of Pakistan v. Hari son of Mawa, decided on 18th August 1980, wherein it was observed as follows :‑ "It may finally be pointed out that this Tribunal has repeatedly held that no appeal lies against a decision given by the Commissioner under Standing Order 10‑B, since the matters in respect of which appeal can be preferred are limited to those specified in subsec tion (1) of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The ear liest decision to this effect was given by this Tribunal in the case of Re: Daily Mashriq v. Mst. Roshan Khatoon, decided on 23rd July, 1975. The said decision was followed in the cases of (I) Tanweer Textile Mills v. Mst. Ameena 1976 P L C 92) and (2) Rice Export Corporation v. Races Bibi, decided on 7th March, 1977. I am in respectful agreement with this view." . The decision in the case of General Tyre was followed in the 'recent case of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation v. Mat. Nawab Bibi, decided on 25th November, 1980. It has, thus, been the consistent view of the Tribunal that no appeal lies against the decision of the learned Com missioner under Standing Order 10‑B. The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed as being not maintainable.