1984 PLP 768 (PLC(CS))
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI Versus SADIQ MASIH
| Citation | 1984 PLP 768 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI Versus SADIQ MASIH |
| Primary Law | Workmen's Compensation's Act (VIII of 1923)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 768 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Workmen's Compensation's Act (VIII of 1923)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 768 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1984 PLP 768 (PLC(CS)) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI Versus SADIQ MASIH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Nayvi for Appellant.
- Ch. Fazal Elahi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 25th January, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. l l (2) & 30‑Order of Commissioner awarding compensa tion challenged on ground that injured workman did not in compli ance with order of Commissioner get himself examined from named Doctor‑Workman however examined by Medical Board constitued by employer (Railway Administration) ‑ Objection that accused was got examined by Railway Medical Board and had not appeared himself of his own accord before such Board, in circumstances, held, immaterial and rejected.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Muhammad Nayvi for Appellant. Ch. Fazal Elahi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 25th January, 1983. This appeal arises from the decision dated 16th December, 1980 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Gujrat, where by the respondent was granted Rs. 21,000 as compensation for the injuries caused to his both knees, as a result of an accident which took place on 22nd April, 1978 while he was on duty.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respon dent was not entitled to any compensation as he did not in compliance to the order Exh. R. 2 of the Commissioner for Workmen, get himself examined from the Railways' doctor. He says that no doubt report dated 27th July, 1978 is of the Medical Board of the Railway but the appellant got the respondent examined by the Board and not that the respondent himself appeared before the Board in compliance with the order Exh. R. 2 of the learned Commissioner. This argument is ex facie fallacious. Since ultimately the respondent was examined by the Railways Medical Board, it is immaterial if the appellant got him examined and the respondent did not of his own accord appear before the Board. Unless the Board had been constituted, he could not have appeared before any such Board. As soon as the board was got constituted by the appellant and the respondent was asked to appear before it, he complied with the direction.
3. The report of the Board dated 27th July, 1978 is that the respon dent had been rendered completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind. It was thus a total permanent disablement. So the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation rightly allowed the maximum compensation of Rs. 21,000.
4. As upshot of the discussion made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it. A. E. Appeal dismissed