2009 PLP 331 (PLC)

MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.

All these five petitions have been filed against the impugned orders of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under Payment of Wages Act at Sukkur, dated 23rd May, 2006, but in separate proceeding, whereby application has been allowed and respondents have been directed to deposit Group Insurance in respect of the deceased which is to be distributed amongst the legal heirs of the deceased in each case. The brief factual position coming on the record is that the private respondents in all petitions mentioned as respondent No.2 are the legal heirs of the concerned deceased who was employed with the Fouji Fertilizers Company Ltd., Mirpur Mathelo and continued working for more than a decade and died during the course of their employment, therefore, separate applications were filed before Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under. Payment of Wages Act at Sukkur, for Group Insurance money in terms of Standing Order 10(b) of Ordinance, 1968. The said application(s) was contested by Fouji Fertilizers as well as Messrs Qadri and Company who was shown as contractor. At the first time, Fouji Fertilizers contested to the extent that since the deceased were contractual employees of Qadri & Co., therefore, said company is liable to pay Group Insurance in terms of the contract which has been entered between Fouji Fertilizers and Qadri & Co. while Qadri & Co. chooses to remain absent during the proceedings. During the course of proceedings, a letter came on the record written by Fouji Fertilizers to Qadri and Company asking and reminding thereby that under the contractual obligations it has to pay Group Insurance to the legal heirs of deceased persons. Messrs Fouji Fertilizer instead of contesting the case on strong merit filed written statement and filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., stating therein that there is no cause of action against it. In the written statement liability was also denied on the ground that the deceased were contractual employees of Qadri and Company, therefore, Fouji Fertilizers is not liable to pay. The trial Court passed an order on application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. and dismissed the same, but since the contentions of the parties had already come on record in respect to their admission and denial while no further evidence was required in terms of the contentions, therefore, the Court proceeded further and finalized the matter by declaring that the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to the compensation. The said order, dated 23-5-2006 has now been contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that no opportunity for recording evidence was given to it, while Group Insurance responsibility was a liability over Qadri and Company as it has entered an agreement with Fouji Fertilizers, hence order could be passed against that company, and not against Fouji Fertilizers. He has further argued that instead of winding up the matter through Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. evidence would have been recorded. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that there was no use of lingering on the matter as entire contentions of the parties had already come on the record. Fouji Fertilizers was admitting that the deceased were their employees and have died but instead of paying the compensation they shifted their responsibility to Qadri and Company which remained absent during the trial and did not file written statement. He further submits that in the application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., contentions were similar to that of written statement, therefore, in absence of any factual controversy in the written statement no evidence was required. He has referred SBLR 2005 Sindh 1130 and stated that the compensation is against the said company and it has been held that since the employees were working for the benefit of main company, therefore, they are to be considered employees of the company and not of the contractor. Learned counsel further submits that he has gone through the. factual position involved and keeping in view that all the legal heirs are roaming around after the death of their near and dear while having performed their duties for a decease and still have been thrown like ping pong ball as respondents are shifting their responsibility against each other, hence they may settle their own dispute in respect to their rights and obligations somewhere else while these petitions have no force and to be dismissed with costs. Here in this case, as per facts disclosed the main beneficiary and employer is Fouji Fertilizers as it needed and employed certain employees but to shift its responsibility, imposed under some Labour Laws, it has tried to shift the same through some contractual obligations and such document has also come on record which is an agreement between Fouji Fertilizers and Qadri and Company. In such a situation, it is crystal clear that deceased employees were working for the Fouji Fertilizers, hence liability in respect to the Labour Laws is to be fulfilled by either of them, but none is coming forward keeping in view the authority SBLR 2005 Sindh 11.30, the employee is to be considered of the person for whom he is performing his duties. The legal bindings and liabilities cannot be allowed to be shifted through in-house management by referring any agreement nor such type of agreement can affect rights of third parties. Contractual obligations entered between Fouji Fertilizers and Qadri & Co. may be settled without involving employees who could not afford burden of litigation keeping in view their economic status and position of their legal heirs. In such a situation although Compensation Court has disposed of entire matter on Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. but that is proper and speaking order encircling ' thereby all the factual position and controversy raised by the parties, therefore, it cannot be interfered, hence all these petitions are dismissed. The amount deposited in terms of the order of lower Court be distributed amongst the legal heirs within a period of seven days. H.B.T./F-21/K Appeal dismissed.