1989 PLP 1239 (CLC)

Civil Petition No.S‑13 of 1987, decided on 2nd November, 1988. ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) S.23‑ Constitutional petition‑‑Petitioner contesting against some observation made by Commissioner regarding his liability to make compensation to workers‑‑Petitioner dealing in procurement of rice inside Pakistan and export of rice to foreign countries and for this purpose maintained several establishments‑‑Petitioner had assigned different works to different persons‑‑Contract of employment between workers not entered by petitioner but some other persons having been entrusted the work‑‑Appointment letters produced testified such position‑ Observation of Commissioner against petitioner quashed in circum stances. Obaidur Rehman for Petitioner. S.A. Moeen for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th October, 1988. This petition is directed against the observation contained in an order dated 11‑5‑1986 passed by the first respondent. The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner deals in procurement of rice inside Pakistan and exports rice to foreign countries. The petitioner for this purpose maintains several establishments like offices, godowns, mills at Karachi and also in other cities of Pakistan. It is the case of the petitioner that the civil works, electrical works and maintenance works of the building have been assigned to second respondent. The second respondent for the purposes of maintaining building and electrical work employs its own staff including workers and supervisors. The contract of employment between the staff of second respondent is entirely between the second respondent and its staff. For the work entrusted to the second respondent, the petitioner paid the estimated cost including departmental charges thereon. The third respondent was employed by the second respondent as work‑charged staff. The appointment letter of third respondent was issued by the second respondent. The third respondent was posted at Bin, Qasim (Pipri) by the second respondent and he was posted for the maintenance work who unfortunately met with an accident on 20‑6‑1983. The worker who was on work‑charged establishment of second respondent received injuries which he accordingly notified to the second respondent by notice dated 23‑10‑1983. The third respondent filed an application for recovery of compensation for the injury received by him while employed by the second respondent on maintenance work at Pipri godown. In this application the petitioner was also joined as second respondent. On receipt of notice, the petitioner filed written statement. The parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The application was decided on 11‑5‑1986. The first respondent awarded an amount of Rs.18,900 plus Rs.32 and directed the second respondent to deposit the said amount within fifteen days from the date of the order. The operative part of the order is reproduced hereunder:‑ "The opponents No.l are directed to deposit the above amount of Rs.18,900 plus Rs.32 in this Court within 15 days which he may charge from opponent No.2 i.e. the R.E.C.P." The petitioner being aggrieved against the above observation .has filed the above petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It i admitted position that the civil work, electrical work and maintenance work of the building has been assigned to the second respondent the petitioner. The second respondent for the purposes of maintaining building and electrical work employs its own staff including workers and supervisors. The contract of employment between the staff of second respondent is entirely between the second respondent and its staff. For the work entrusted to the second respondent, the petitioner paid the estimated cost including departmental charges thereon. The third respondent was employed by the second respondents as work‑charged staff. I have perused the appointment letter annexed A to the petition as Annexure 'A'. A perusal thereof would show that the third respondent was appointed by the second respondent. A perusal of posting letter dated 10‑4‑1985 (Annexure 'B' to the petition) would show that the third respondent was posted by the second respondent. The submission of Mr. Shahudul Haq is contrary to the agreement between the petitioner and second respondent and also contrary to the appointment letter and the posting letter. I have not option, but to quash the observation /operative part of the order. The constitution petition is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. The above are the reasons for my short order dated 6‑10‑1988 passed on the conclusion of the arguments. M.Y.H./R‑67/K Petition allowed.