1993 PLP 726 (SCMR)

(3) amounts due to each of such employees who were being paid regular percentage share out of premium received from different categories of policy‑holders insured by such field staff; (4) any other amounts like provident fund, company contribution, commission, etc., payable to them; (5) said information be supplied separately for each nationalised Insurance Company with the list of its said employees and amounts due to them."

5. In response the appellant submitted two separate affidavits; one in respect of nine such insurers and one in respect of another insurer, as hereunder:‑‑ ______________________________________________________________________ "Sr. No. Name of the Insurance Company Total amount due to East Pakistan Field Workers ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ (1) American. Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs.1,10,645.25 (2) Habib Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs. 1,579.56 (3) New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs. 766.76 (4) National Security Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs. 13,313.70 (5) Oriental Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs. 4,894.54 (6) Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs. 17,953.27 (7) Cooperative Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs. 9,702.12 (8) International General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs. 31,109.57 (9). Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs. 10,510.03 Under Second Affidavit: (1) Adamjee Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs.34,737.25 ________________________________________________________________________ Total: Rs.2,00,478.83" ________________________________________________________________________

6. The Deputy Administrator after receiving these statements passed two separate orders; one on 3‑9‑1977 holding that the commission payable to the Field Staff (1128 workers) in respect of nine nationalized insurance companies amounting to Rs.2,00,478.83 was abandoned property and was to be dealt with under. the Act; and the other on 21‑9‑1977 determining in a similar fashion that the amount of Rs.34,737.25 relating to 215 employees of one company (Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd.) was abandoned property and was to be dealt with as such. This adjudication was followed by a notice of demand dated 17‑10‑1977. The appellant invoked the appellate and revisional forums provided under the Act but being not successful instituted two Constitution petitions.

7. The main contention of the appellant before the High Court was that these insurance companies were in fact maintaining their separate offices/branches in East Pakistan and West Pakistan. On account of the war and the imposition of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, the arrangement existing between the Insurance Companies and the Field Officers had got frustrated. It could not be enforced nor the liabilities of the Insurance Companies towards those Field workers/officers be taken over and discharged by the appellant.

8. The High Court on the question of law came to the conclusion that the definition of 'specified person' and of `abandoned property' as reproduced above brought within its net the liabilities passed on under the statute to the appellant and it was in respect of it accountable to the authorities established under the Act. The Constitution petitions were, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

9. Mr. Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant has in arguing the appeal urged before .us without disputing the applicability of definitions of `abandoned property' and 'specified person' that the liabilities in respect of such Field workers were in the form of a running account and the amount of commission due to them was not the net amount in fact due to them. Besides, according to the learned counsel, individual accounts of the specified persons or field workers were not maintained by these insurance companies at the principal office in West Pakistan wherefrom these amounts were payable. It was only the lump sum due on account of these East Pakistani Field Workers that was entered in the books of accounts and was conveyed. He half, relied on the decision in Arab Bank Limited v. Barclays Bank (1954) 2 All ER 226.

10. So far as the legal and jurisdictional aspect of the case is concerned, the High Court adopted the right course of first examining the jurisdictional fact prescribed under the Act by defining `abandoned property' and 'specified person'. The definitions provided therein do bring within their net the dues entered 'into and payable to Field Workers in East Pakistan who ceased to be citizens of Pakistan after declaration of independence by the Bangladesh Government and its recognition by our Government. Any amount due to such persons would be `abandoned property' and such persons would under the definition be classified as 'specified persons'.

11. As regards the questions of frustration of the contract, or the liability in view of the state of war, the applicability of Defence of Pakistan Rules or the taking over of the properties of the insurance companies located in East Pakistan by the Bangladesh Government, these are questions which do not touch the jurisdictional aspect of the matter. As between parties these factors would have been relevant and determinative in apportioning rights and liabilities, if a statute on the subject had not intervened. The statute completely takes over in a situation where the contracts get affected by a state of war, by appropriation of property and assets, and by non‑recognition/recognition of Governments. It is statute and its provisions which control thereafter the liabilities and not the ordinary civil laws dealing with the contract between the parties.

12. The argument that the accounts have not been kept in proper form, or that the liability in respect of each specified person is not disclosed therein, or that it was a running account, makes no difference to the application of law though these factors may make difference to the ultimate financial liablility or burden to which the appellant can be put under the law. It cannot be said on the facts admitted that the liability of the Field Workers' commission was not of the insurance companies or of its principal office and that the offices located in East Pakistan were such complete units as to dischrge those responsibilities entirely by themselves, the Head Office being not accountable for them nor the branches accountable to the Head Office.

13. The case of Arab Bank Limited is of no assistance on the facts of this case because therein it is a different statute governing the situation which was taken note of and given effect to. An amount payable in a particular branch of a particular country could not be realized from the Head Office located in a different country when it amounted to violation of so many local and international laws in the field. Here, neither factually nor legally the position is analogous. The difficulty of working out the net due to each Field Worker can be resolved by having access to the claim and the record relating to it. It is for the appellant in that case to dispute the amount and not the right of the respondents to ask for it.

14. In the circumstances, we find that no case has been made out for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction. Both the appeals are without merit and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./S‑728/S Appeals dismissed.