1988 PLP 653 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss.10 & 30‑‑Claim before Commissioner‑‑Limitation‑‑Question of limitation not properly decided by Commissioner, was set aside in appeal and case remanded for decision afresh after opportunity of evidence to parties. Munir Ahmed Senior Clerk of Appellant. Ch. Mahboob Aalam with Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1986. This is an appeal brought under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order dated 30‑9‑1986 recorded by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Faisalabad, whereby Rs.8,000 were allowed to the respondent as compensation for the loss of his right eye as a result of an accident which had taken place :when the respondent was performing his duties.

2. The respondent is a driller and worked at Drilling Machine. By the said machine boring is done on the earth for the installation of tube wells. The petition brought under section 10 by the respondent was opposed by the appellant. In the written statement it was contended that respondent being a civil servant the learned Commissioner had no jurisdiction and that the petition was time‑barred.

3. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned the learned Commissioner has observed that the respondent is covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(1)(n) read with clause (1) I of Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Clause (1) reads as under: "employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity or on a railway, in connection with the operation or maintenance of a lift or a vehicle propelled by steam or mechanical power or by electricity". A Drilling machine is neither a lift nor a vehicle. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the drilling machine is fitted on a truck, therefore, clause (1) of schedule 11 applies. The machine is fitted on the truck for easy transport to the site where drilling is to be done and the respondent operates the machine but not the truck. The driver who drives the truck may be covered by the clause but not the respondent. Feeling that clause (1) may not be applicable learned counsel has during argument made reference to clause (2) of schedule II but the same is not helpful. Firstly there should be evidence that 10 or more persons work in the premises where manufacturing process is done and other is that the manufacturing process should be done in some premises. Obviously tubewells are sunk not in any premises but in the open air for the supply of water to the public for agricultural purpose. There is no evidence that the drilling is done in some premises. After sinking the wells a structure may be constructed for housing the machinery of the tubewell but unless there is evidence that before drilling is done a structure is erected it cannot be said that manufacturing process is done within the precincts of any premises. It appears that the case of the respondent was not properly conducted, therefore, relevant evidence could not come on the record on the point of jurisdiction. The point of limitation too has not been properly decided by the learned Commissioner, the case, therefore, needs further inquiry.

4. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the case is remanded for fresh decision after giving last opportunity to both the parties to produce relevant evidence on the whole case particularly on the points of jurisdiction and limitation. A.E. /304/LB.P??????????? Case remanded.