1977 PLP 348 (PLC)
N/A
| Citation | 1977 PLP 348 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | (b) Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), (a) Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 348 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), (a) Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 348 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 348 (PLC) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Unman Ghani Rashid, A. A.‑G. for Appellant.
- S. A. Channa for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 30‑Question whether evidence of one witness should be accepted in preference to other‑Question of fact, not assailable in appeal.
Doctor certifying that workman suffered permanent partial disability to extent of 25 yd‑Contention that fact of workman's being still in service and drawing same salary was sufficient to rebut evidence of Doctor‑Held, without force. Divisional Superintendent v. Anwar Ali Appeal No. 25 of 1970 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Doctor certifying that workman suffered permanent partial disability to extent of 25 yd‑Contention that fact of workman's being still in service and drawing same salary was sufficient to rebut evidence of Doctor‑Held, without force. Divisional Superintendent v. Anwar Ali Appeal No. 25 of 1970 ref. Unman Ghani Rashid, A. A.‑G. for Appellant. S. A. Channa for Respondent. DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation to the respon dent.
2. The respondent was in the employment of the Pakistan Railways. He sustained injuries. He received treatment in the Railways Hospital for 21 months. Subsequently he obtained a certificate from Dr. Aftab Ahmed Qureshi to the effect that he had suffered permanent partial disability t the extent of 25%. On the basis of this certificate he filed the claim. The appellant res1sted claim and pleaded that the respondent did not suffer any disability and he was still in service drawing the same salary.
3. Evidence was recorded. The respondent examined Dr. Aftab Ahmed Qureshi while the appellant examined Dr. Syed Mohammad Ehtisham to refute the certificate (sued by the former Doctor. The learned Commissioner accepted evidence of Dr. Aftab Ahmed Qureshi and awarded the compensa tion.
4. The question whether the evidence of one Doctor should be accepted in preference to the other is a question of fact and cannot be assailed in appeal.
5. Mr. Usman Ghani, appearing on behalf of the appellant, however, contended that the respondent was still in service and drawing the same salary and this was sufficient to rebut the evidence of Dr. Aftab Ahmed a Qureshi. This ground has no force in view of the decision of the High Court of Sind & Baluch1stan in Misc. Appeal No. 25 of 1970 in the case of Divisional Superintendent v. Anwar All, decided on the 31st of August. 1972.