1982 PLP 689 (PLC(CS))

‑ S. 30 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Em ployment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1.968), S. O. 10‑B Dectsion of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation under S: O. 10‑B of West Pakistan: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑Not appealable before Labour Appellate `tribunal‑Such decision further held, not open to suo motu revisional powers of Labour Appellate Tribunal‑Un‑successful party to dispute cannot be permitted to invoke suo motu revisional powers of Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑Revision‑Indus trial Relations Ordinance (XXI11 of 1969), S. 38 (3a). Jannat Textile Mills v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal P L D 1979 Kar. 725 rel. A. Razaq Puri for Appellants. Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1982. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, said to have been announced on 3rd October, 1981, direc ting Messrs Lalazar Cinema, Landhi, Karachi to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,000 as group insurance of deceased Sher Muhammad Khan under Standing Order 10‑B for payment to the heirs and dependants of the said deceased, Sher Muhammad Khan, Messrs Lalazar Cinema have come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. Apart from the fact that the appeal was filed after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed in section 30 of the Workmen's Compensa tion Act. it has been repeatedly held by this Tribunal that no appeal lies to this Tribunal against the decision of thee learned Commissioner, Work men's Compensation under Standing Order 10‑B. The latest decision o A this Tribunal on this point is in the case ‑of Government of Sind v. Mst. Zohra Begum, decided on 12th July, 3981. In view of this position Mr. Puri submitted that the appeal may be treated as information for the purposes of exercise of suo mote powers of revision by this Tribunal under subsection (3a) of section 38, I. R. O. There would however, appear to be 2 main hurdles to acceding to the request. In the first place, the powers conferred on this Tribunal under the aforesaid subsection can only be exercised in respect of proceedings taken under the I. R. 0. while the proceedings before the learned Commissioner, Workmen's 'B Compensation, were taken under the Standing Orders read with the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Even the judgment of the High Court in the case National Cement Industries Ltd. v. Sind Labour Appel late Tribunal Karachi, dated 2nd April, 1981, would be of no assistance to the appellants as, firstly, the said decision was in respect of an appeal decided under the Payment of Wages Act, and secondly the appellate authority under the said Act is the Labour Court, the procedure whereof is governed by the Industrial Relations Ordinance and even otherwise it is under general supervision of this Tribunal. The second hurdle in allowing the request of Mr. Puri is that an unsuccessful or dis-grounded party to a dispute cannot be permitted to invoke the suo motu revision powers of this Tribunal under subsection (3a) of section 38, I. R. O., as observed by the Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Jannat Textile Mills v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal (P L D 1979 Kar. 725).

3. For the reasons discussed by me above, neither the appeal can be entertained nor can it be converted into proceedings under subsection (3a) of I. R. O. I would, therefore, dismiss both the appeal as well as the request of Mr. Puri for the conversion of the appeal into suo motu revision.