1989 PLP 933 (CLC)

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑5.0.10‑B‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Jurisdiction of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation‑‑Workman resigned from service and claimed Group Insurance‑‑Employer directed to deposit same within one month‑‑Order impugned‑‑Contentions that Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain claim of the petitioner and that apart from legal dues the workman had also received ex gratia payment‑‑Such pleas admittedly having not been taken before the lower forum, case remanded by High Court for decision afresh on the request of parties. Riaz Hussain Baloch for Petitioner. Hameed M. Siddiqui for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1988. This petition is directed against the order dated 17‑6‑1987 passed by the respondent No.l. The facts leading to the filing of the above petition the respondent No.2 worked in the petitioner's factory as a permanent workman for the period from 1‑11‑1969 to 1‑3‑1982. It is alleged in the petition that on resignation he collected his legal dues and he was issued a service certificate on 2‑3‑1982. The respondent No.2 moved a petition under Standing Order 10‑B of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 before the respondent No.l claiming Rs.15,000 on account of Group Insurance. The petitioner resisted the petition. The respondent No.l by his order dated 17‑6‑1987 allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.14,700 within one month. The petitioner being aggrieved against the above order has filed the above Constitutional Petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch contended that the petition under Standing Order 10‑B was not maintainable and the learned respondent No.l had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that apart from legal dues, the petitioner had also paid ex gratia payment to the respondent No.2. The learned counsel wanted to produce the receipt and the register in this behalf. Mr. Saiful Malloke Khohistani contested this payment. Both the learned counsel jointly submitted that this submission was not raised before the learned respondent No.l and requested that this is a fit case for remand. I think that it is just and equitable to remand the case for decision. By consent the impugned order dated 17‑6‑1987 is set aside j and the case is remanded to the respondent No.l for decision. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner, IA Workmen's Compensation, West Division on 10‑11‑1988. The parties are at liberty to amend the pleadings and adduce evidence both oral and documentary in support of their respective contentions. The learned Commissioner is directed to decide the petition in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the sides within three months from 10‑11‑1988: Constitutional Petition No.S‑84 of 1987 is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. M.Z.S./S‑294/K Case remanded.