1995 PLP 581 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD MUNIR Versus PRTC, BADAMI BAGH, LAHORE
| Citation | 1995 PLP 581 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUNIR Versus PRTC, BADAMI BAGH, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 581 (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 1995 PLP 581 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 581 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD MUNIR Versus PRTC, BADAMI BAGH, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H.R. Haider for Appellant.
- Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 30‑‑‑Appellate Jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Compensation‑‑‑Claim of‑‑ Justification‑‑‑Where medical certificate did not tally with record, certain columns whereof, having been changed with different pen and ink, such document being tampered with, held, could not be relied upon in claim of compensation for physical disability‑‑‑Authority having rightly discarded such documentary evidence and holding that appellant did not suffer from disability, such finding could not be interfered with by Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of Appellate jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
H.R. Haider for Appellant. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1986. This is an appeal preferred under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the decision dated 4‑3‑1986 delivered by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Lahore.
2. Previously the case was remanded for the examination of the doctor who had issued the certificate Exh. P‑
3. Not the same doctor but some other doctor has been examined. The appellant claimed compensation on account of an accident alleged to have been met by the appellant arising out of and in the course of his employment. He had during the accident received injuries on the right clavicle and some ribs. The learned Commissioner has rightly found that certificate Exh. P‑3 is tampered with. Columns Nos. 7 and 8 were originally left blank by drawing small line denoting that entries were `Nil'. Afterwards with different pen and ink entries were made in the said columns. Dr. Talib Hussain, who had brought the record, deposed in answer to cross‑examination that whatever was written in columns 7 and 8 of Exh. P‑3 was not present in the record. Column No. 11 was filled in by the doctor while signing the document. In the said column it is said that there was no disability. Clause No. 7, which bears entries with different ink and pen suggests that loss of earning capacity was 60 per cent. Column No. 8 bears. entries with different ink and suggests that `working capacity' will be less than before. The entries are discrepant from the entry made in Column No. 11 which suggests that there was .no disability. It is thus clear that Exh. P‑3 is a tampered‑with‑document and thus cannot be relied upon. The learned Commissioner therefore has rightly discarded the said documentary evidence. As the appellant did not suffer from any disability as mentioned in column No. 11 of Exh. P‑3, he is not entitled to any compensation. His petition, therefore, has been rightly dismissed.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.A./165/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.