1999 PLP 184 (PLC)
Messrs KOTRI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, HYDERABAD and another
| Citation | 1999 PLP 184 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman |
| Parties | Messrs KOTRI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, HYDERABAD and another |
| Primary Law | Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 184 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 184 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 184 (PLC) (Messrs KOTRI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, HYDERABAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A.K. Azmati for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 18th January, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 32
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 10-B
Payment of amount under compulsory group insurance by employer
Maintainability-- Employer fling appeal against order whereby it was ordered to pay to employee amount of death compensation towards group insurance, had failed to deposit with Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation amount payable which was condition precedent for filing the appeal
For such default and there being no question of law being involved in appeal filed by employer same was dismissed- being not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
4. Today the matter is again fixed for Katcha Peshi. Admittedly the order of the Court, dated 5‑10‑1998 still remains uncomplied with.
5. It seems relevant to produce section 30 providing for appeal to this Court under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which reads as under:‑‑
30. Appeals.‑‑(1) An appeal shall lie to the Tribunal from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half‑monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half‑monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependents of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependent; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing far the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b) unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: Provided further, that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. "
6. On my query learned counsel submitted that his contention is two fold; firstly the deceased, Nasir Iqbal had ceased to be in the employment of the appellant Mills on the date of death i.e. 13‑6‑1995, and secondly the legal dues of 7,150 had already been paid to him during his lifetime. Be that as it may, these two contentions are based on facts. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The law provides that no appeal by the employer shall lie under clause (a) above unless the amount of compensation has been deposited. This proviso was added subsequently by the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1933 with an object to lessen the agonies of worker specially when he was bread‑winner for the family and dies during the course of employment. As such, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Announced in open Court this 18th day of January, 1999. H.B.T./261‑K/Lab. (Trib.) Appeal dismissed.