1988 PLP 107 (PLC)
CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Ltd. Versus ALI KHAN
| Citation | 1988 PLP 107 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Ltd. Versus ALI KHAN |
| Primary Law | Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 107 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 107 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 107 (PLC) (CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Ltd. Versus ALI KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑Ss.10 & 30‑‑Respondent workman having spoiled his legs as a result of accident during course of duty was awarded compensation by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation‑‑Appellant‑Corporation being absent on date of hearing and their application for re‑opening their side having been dismissed, remaining ex‑parte and entire case of respondent‑workman stood un-rebutted‑‑Appellant‑Corporation failing to explain with cogent reasons and authentic proof as to why it was ex‑parte and why application for re‑opening its case was dismissed as being time‑barred‑‑Appellant‑Corporation, held, had nothing to defend the respondent's claim and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was correct in passing impugned order‑‑No reason shown for interference with impugned order‑‑Appeal dismissed.
- Muhammad Sadiq Ansari for Appellants.
- Manazar Alam for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th March, 1987.
- 4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Ansari, the learned Counsel, for the appellant Corporation and Mr. Manazar Alam, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent workman and have also gone through the entire record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Ansari, the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation has miserably failed to explain with cogent reason and authentic proof,) that why he was ex‑parte and even why the application for re‑opening of the Corporation's side was dismissed as being time‑barred. I, therefore, hold that the appellant Corporation has nothing with it to defend the claim of the respondent and that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was quite correct in passing the impugned[ order.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Sadiq Ansari for Appellants. Manazar Alam for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th March, 1987. This is an appeal filed by Messrs Utility Store Corporation under section 30 of workmen's Compensation Act, against an impugned order, dated 22‑11‑1986, passed by the learned Commissioner for workmen's compensation authority under the payment of Wages Act at Sukkur, who had awarded & cash compensation of Rs.25,931.00 in Application No.12/1985 filed by respondent, Ali Khan under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Ali Khan was working as a Driver and during the course of duty on 1‑1‑1984 he met with an accident resulting in that his both legs were spoiled. The respondent remained under medical treatment upto 26‑6‑1985, where after he was declared unfit by the Civil Surgeon. The respondent had got also treated himself from a specialist and therefore he had also spent a sum of R.s.10,000.00. The services of the respondent were terminated with effect from 10‑3‑1985 and at that time he was getting Rs.892.00 per month as his gross salary. The respondent claimed that since then he was approaching for payment of compensation but it was being refused by the appellant corporation for one reason or the other.
3. The respondent filed his affidavit‑in‑evidence before the learned Commissioner while the appellant was absent and as, their application for re‑opening their side was also dismissed therefore, the appellant corporation was ex‑parte and the entire case of the respondent workman un‑rebutted. Thus, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Authority under the payment of Wages Act, has passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Ansari, the learned Counsel, for the appellant Corporation and Mr. Manazar Alam, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent workman and have also gone through the entire record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Ansari, the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation has miserably failed to explain with cogent reason and authentic proof,) that why he was ex‑parte and even why the application for re‑opening of the Corporation's side was dismissed as being time‑barred. I, therefore, hold that the appellant Corporation has nothing with it to defend the claim of the respondent and that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was quite correct in passing the impugned[ order.
5. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would dismiss the present appeal. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Sukkur is directed to pay the entire amount, whatsoever it is deposited with him; to the respondent, Ali Khan forthwith after due and proper identification. S.Q./1032/Lb.S