1986 PLP 656 (PLC(CS))

Respondent in Person. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1985. This is an appeal lodged under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order, dated 10‑8‑1985 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sargodha, directing the appellant to deposit Rs.21,000 as the amount of group insurance for payment to the respondent. The respondent in an accident suffered injuries on his right shoulder joint, right malar bone and right upper and lower eye‑lids. The doctor assessed in percentage at 50, 35 and 15 respectively to the abovementioned injuries totally 100%.

2. An objection was raised in the written statement by the appellant that since the respondent had been insured under the group insurance scheme, only the insurance company was liable, but the learned Commissioner did not advert to it and held that as the Insurance Company had assessed the percentage of the loss of earning capacity at 30 per cent and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the said insurance company and the respondent, and said company was not liable and the appellant was liable. The learned Commissioner has not considered Standing Order 10‑B (4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which makes the employer liable only if he fails to get the employee insured under Standing Order 10‑B. For ready reference Standing Order 10‑B (4) is reproduced as under: ‑ "Where the employer fails to have a permanent workman employed by him insured in the manner laid down in clauses (1), (2) and (3) and such workman suffers death or injury arising out of contingencies mentioned in clause (1), the employer shall pay, in the case of death, to the heirs of such workman, or in the case of injury, to the workman, such sum of money as would have been payable by the insurance company had such workman been insured." Since the appellant got the respondent duly insured under the group insurance scheme, he stood absolved of the responsibility of making payment of insurance amount to the respondent. Sub‑clause (5) of the Standing Order 10‑B speaks about the forum. It again makes reference to sub‑clause (4) of Standing Order 10‑B. Since according to Standing order 10‑B (4), the employer is liable, if he fails to get his employee insured, the Commissioner under Standing Order 10‑B (5) can proceed against the employer if he has failed to get his employee insured. There is no provision in Standing Order 10‑B for proceeding against the insurance company before the Compensation Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondent could proceed against the insurance company only as it had not paid the full amount according to the percentage of disability fixed by the doctor and the forum was neither the Compensation Commissioner nor the Labour Court.

3. A s a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner, the petition brought under section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act read with Standing Order 10‑B of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant can be withdrawn by it. A. E. Appeal accepted.