1984 PLP 875 (PLC)

Hyderabad v. Mst. Zohra Begum and others 1981 P L C 490 rel.. . S. A. Sarwana and Abbas Ahmad for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 28th July, 1983. This appeal arises out of an order, dated 10th March, 1983, passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation rejecting the claim of the appellant to an award of gratuity of the deceased Dock worker under clause (8) of Standing Order 12 read with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly stated are, that the appellant is a son of Dock-worker, Ibrahim, employed with the respondent Karachi Dock Labour Board. Ibrahim died during the course of his employment. The appellant is also a nominee of his deceased father for receiving gratuity, his only brother, Hussain, having no objection to such grant of gratuity to his brother, the appellant. Consequently, on 25th January, 1983, the Karachi Dock Labour Board with whom the worker Ibrahim, was employed, sent a cheque for Rs. 10,962 to the Commis sioner for Workmen's Compensation, for disbursement of the amount to the dependents of the deceased workman in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 12 (8) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, as adopted by the Karachi Dock Labour Board in the memorandum signed, on 26th March, 1974 On 10th February, 1983, the appellant made an application to the Com missioner for disbursement of the gratuity amount to him being the nominee dependent of his deceased father. The Commissioner, after holding an enquiry rejected the claim of the appellant, finding that neither he nor his brother were his dependents, vide the order, dated 10th March, 1983. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has come in this appeal. 3. 1 have heard Uessers Abbas Ahmed and Sarwana, the learned counsel for the appellant, whereas the respondent, Karachi Dock Labour Board has remained absent in spite of service of the Notice. There is no gain-saying that no appeal lies under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against an order of award of refusal of gratuity under Standing Order 12, as there is no specific provisison for such appeal to this Tribunal. This Tribunal has held time and again that section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, has made provision for the appeal against certain orders passed only under the Act and not against an order passed under different Statute and, therefore, the operation of the provision of section 30 cannot be extended to the cases in which orders have been passed by the Commissioner either under Standing Order 10-B or under clause (8) of Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The earliest decision to this effect was given by this Tribunal in the case of Daily Mashriq v. Mst. Roshan Khatoon, decided on 23rd JWy, 1975. The said decision was followed in a number of cases and the case Government of Sind through its Executive Engineer, Feeder Division, Hyderabad v. Mst. Zohra Begum and others (P L D 1967 Kar. 547), has direct bearing to the case in the present appeal. Accordingly, there is no doubt that no appeal lies against an order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the claim of gratuity under clause (8) of Standing Order 12 in view of the provision of, section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, since the matters in respect of which appeal can be preferred are limited to those specified in subsection (1) of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

4. Confronted with the situation the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, after having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Act, have contended in this appeal that the gratuity was payable to the dependents of the deceased as per terms of settlement between the Dock Labour Board and the Collective Bargaining Agent as shown therein and the Commissioner had misconcei ved the law in applying the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act to the case. They pleaded no such settlement, or that the disbursement of the amount was to be Made in accordance with the terms of the settle ment before the Commissioner. On the contrary, the Karachi Dock Labour Board by the letter, dated 25th January, 1983, moved the Commis sioner for disbursement of the amount in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order 12, clause (8) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, as adopted by the Karachi Dock Labour Board in' the memorandum signed, on 26th 1974. Along with the memo. of this appeal an extract purported to have been from such memorandum of settlement between the parties has been annexed. Clause (3) of Demand No. 1 of which says that in case a Dock worker dies while in the service of the Board, he shall be paid the gratuity in accordance with the provisions as outlined in sub-para. (2), through the Commissioner of the area appointed by the Provincial Govern ment under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The memorandum of settlement in original has not been produced in the proceedings before the Commissioner as well as in the proceedings of this appeal. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant have referred me to the provisions of Act No. IX of 1974, and the provisions of scheme made under section 3 thereof, the Karachi Dock Workers Regulation of Employment Scheme, 1973, which only provide for regulating the employment of Dock Workers, having no bearing on the issue involved in the present appeal, The contention raised on behalf of the appellant, in the circumstances has no force at all. Assuming the Commissioner while rejecting the claim for award of gratuity wrongly exercised the jurisdiction, section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, does not provide a right of an appeal against such an order of the Commissioner, to this Tribunal, since the matters in respect of which the appeal can be preferred are limited only to those specified in subsection (1) of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensa tion Act, 1923.

5. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed `as not maintainable. It will, of course be open to the appellant, if so advised, to 1B approach the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.