P L D 1972 Lahore 489 (PLP)

3. Lastly, it is complained that the Management has devised a form of contract and indemnity bond which every registered miner is compelled to sign at the time of getting an unregistered miner approved for employment under him. It is submitted that the terms of this bond are illegal as they seek to burden the registered miner concerned with responsibility for paying compen sation to the unregistered miner.

4. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner‑Union did not press the point regarding the reduction in the number of unregistered miners, and therefore the only question agitated before us is regarding the payment of compen sation to the unregistered miners.

5. At the very outset the learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the locus standi of the petitioner‑Union to maintain this petition submitted that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as created under Article 98 of the 1962‑Constitution, can be invoked only by a person aggrieved, and that too against a specific an definable act of omission or commission on the part of the relevant authorities, but in the instant case the petitioner‑Union was neither an aggrieved person, nor was there any specific act giving rise to a grievance on its part. It is contended that the specific case of the registered miner Sher Khan vis‑a‑vis the unregistered miner Muhammad Khan did not concern the Union as such, and it was only Sher Khan who could agitate the matter provided the other requirements of Article 98 of the Constitution were fulfilled.

6. We consider that there is substance in the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent. At no stage the petitioner‑Union has taken up the matter in dispute before the statutory authorities concerned, nor is there any evidence even to show that the Union agitated this matter with the Management. It was submitted by Mr. Zafar Mahmood that the Union had been making oral representations to the Management and to the other authorities. It will be seen that this is hardly a satisfactory explanation for giving locus standi to the Union. It is conceded that there are no general orders issued by the Management which could give rise to a dispute between the Union and the Manage ment. In fact, the Union has come forward to agitate the individual case of Sher Khan. More or less in similar circum stances it was held in Pakistan Steel Re-rolling Mills' Association v. Province of West Pakistan (P L D 1964 Lab. 138), that an Association would not have locus standi to maintain a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution in respect of the specific grievances of its individual members. The learned counsel for the Union referred us to section 15 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, in an effort to show that a Union could utilise its funds for prosecuting litigation on behalf of its members. That may be so, but the litigation in that case would be by the Member and not by the Union, although it may be financed by the Union. We consider therefore that nothing contained in section 15 of the Trade Unions Act creates a locus standi in favour of the petitioner‑Union.

7. However, even otherwise there is no merit in this petition. The question of compensation raised in this case is essentially a simple one, and is to be regulated by the provisions contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. According to clause (n) of section 2 of the Act, a "workman" means any person, other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business, who is a railway servant or employed on monthly wages not exceeding five hundred rupees in any much capacity as is specified in Schedule II. In the said Schedule a large number of categories of workmen are specified. The fifth category refers to persons employed in any mine, in any mining operation, or in any kind of work other than clerical work, incidental to or connected with any mining operation or with the mineral obtained, or in any kind of work whatsoever below ground. It will be seen that according to these definitions both the registered and unregistered miners must be held to be workmen within the meaning of the Act. Such being the case they would be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

8. As the unregistered miners are not directly employed by the mining‑Company, and are in fact in the nature of helper employed by the registered miners, their case clearly falls within the ambit of section 12 of the Act which may be reproduced here for facility of reference:‑ "12.‑(1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section refer red to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the workman under the employer by whom he is immediately employed. (2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the workman could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the workman could have recovered compensation, and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a workman from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal. (4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere than on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management."

9. It will be seen that under subsection (1) of section 12 the principal has been made liable for the payment of compensa tion even though the workman concerned is employed by a contractor, as defined in the subsection. However, subsection (2) provides that the principal shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor in this behalf, and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. Subsection (3) provides a further guarantee for the workman by enabling him to recover compensation from the contractor instead of the principal. These provisions are clear and unambiguous in spelling out the liability of the principal and the contractor in the matter of payment of compensation to the workmen employed by the contractor. The provisions of this section also show that all disputes arising in this behalf must be referred to the Commissioner appointed by the Government for the purposes of this Act.

10. The correct legal position therefore appears to be that while the Management, as the principal, is liable to pay compensation to an unregistered miner or his heirs, it is also entitled to indemnify itself from the registered miner for whom the unregistered miner was working. This is precisely what has actually happened in the case of the unregistered miner Muhammad Khan. We find that the Management has paid compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,400.00 to the widow of the deceased by means of a cheque issued on the 28th of February 1967. The provisions of subsection (1) of section 12 of the Act have therefore been complied with. The Management is accordingly entitled to seek indemnification from the registered miner Sher Khan in terms of subsection (2) of section

12. There is thus nothing illegal about the demand made by the Management on Sher Khan for the payment of Rs. 1,600.00 for this purpose. If Sher Khan is not willing to pay this amount, then the matter will have to go to the Commissioner appointed under the Act.

11. It seems to us that the indemnity bond devised by the Management in connection with the employment of unregistered miners is in accord with the provisions contained in section 12 of the Act, and therefore it cannot be said to be unlawful or invalid in any manner.

12. As a result, we see no justification for our interference in the matter. The petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed, but the parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.