2025 PLP 186 (PLC)

MAHMOOD A. KHAN, J.

The approach to this constitutional petition has been made by the petitioner aggrieved after approach to the learned Labour Court, Hyderabad Sindh wherein on account of jurisdiction not being available the appeals bearing Nos.86 to 88 of 2024 filed in respect of the order as passed by the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "authority") dated 15.10.2015 have been impugned.

2. The relevant background of the matter is that on account of an accident in the mine three persons suffered, Abdul Razzak (disable), Naseebullah and Farhad Ali lost their lives where-after on representation on their behalf the authority was pleased to allow the amount of insurance under the provisions of Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2015 under Section 12 (sic) of the said Act scheduled thereto, whereby group insurance amount is payable and in case insurance is not available the amount is to be paid by the employer.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said persons having not acquired the status of permanent worker as required under the said law the impugned orders passed by the authority is not available. In this regard, he has relied upon the definition of Permanent Worker of the said law along with the provision of Section 12 of the schedule thereto being as follows:-- A "permanent worker" is worker who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment, including breaks due to sickness accident, leave, lock-out, strike (not being an illegal strike) or involuntary closure of the establishment and includes a badly who has been employed for a continuous period of ninety days or for one hundred and eighty three days during any period of twelve consecutive months. 12. (1) In every industrial establishment and commercial establishment, in which twenty or more workers are employed, the employer shall have all the permanent workers employed by him insured against natural death and disability and death and injury arising out of contingencies not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Act No. VIII of 1923) or the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 [W.P.Ord. No. X of 1965). (2) The employer shall in all cases be responsible for the payment of the amount of premium and for all administrative arrangements whether carried out by himself or through an insurance company. (3) The amount for which each worker shall be insured shall not be less than the amount of compensation specified in Schedule IV to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Act No. VIII of 1923). (4) Where the employer fails to have a permanent worker employed by him insured in the manner laid down in clauses (1), (2) and (3) and such worker 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 worker or in the case of injury, to the worker, such sum of money as would have been payable by the insurance company had such worker been insured. (5) All claims of a worker or his heirs for recovery of money under clause (4) shall be settled in the same manner as is provided for the determination and recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Act No. VIII of 1923). (Underlining by me for emphasis only)

4. Learned counsel further contended that insurance covered under the said statute can only be said to be available for a permanent worker and as the said persons were yet to acquire the said status of permanent worker they cannot be said to acquire benefit under the said provisions of law. He further contended that had the permanent worker acquired the period of working they could have been entitled but in the present case as it bears from the record which is not denied otherwise that they had not completed said period as such the amounts provided to them by the said authority are not available, Learned counsel as such concluded by relying upon the case reported as Karachi Transport Corporation v. Abdul Aziz and another [1992 PLC 1142] that the words cannot be read into the statute and as such where the specific definition is provided a party not coming up into the requirement the resulting benefit cannot be said to be covered by the said statute. It is also contended that reasoning of the order of providing benefit has not been given.

5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 however, while relying upon the reported case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Development Corporation through Managing Director and another v. Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Hazara Director At Haripur and 6 others [2019 PLC 18] contended that the persons having met the fate of death as already considered by the said authority it is not material whether the period provided in the permanent worker liable to be brought against them.

6. Learned A.A.G contends that the responsibility of the matter for conducting of mine is available with the petitioner as such they are responsible for the workers employed by them.

7. Having heard the learned counsel and gone through the record. Apparently it is a matter requiring interpretation of the definition of permanent worker provided in the said statutes in the required circumstances i.e. "in case of death will the restrictive period provided in the statute come in the way of treating him eligible or otherwise".

8. No question can be brought up as to the death being the ultimate void as far as we are concerned for the purpose of interpretation of statutes. The registration of the deceased with the E.O.B.I though present on record is apparently only for the starting period for continuation of service. It is an admitted position that the deceased have not completed the requirement of period mentioned in statute. Undoubtedly it is basic element of interpretation that words cannot be read into the statute, but apparently there is a position present in the matter whereby the said statute does not discuss the ultimate void in case met by a worker and as to whether the said period will come against him or in his favour as there is no restriction also. For the very purpose perhaps that the statute is for the normal employees however, observing that it is a beneficial statute only in the case of the employees meeting death the same is not found liable to be so interpreted as no one can say negatively or positively as to the completion of the required period. It is observed that not only the said authority has referred death as ultimate in his order and nothing to be otherwise presumed has been shown to this Court The beneficial interpretation of the subject statute is further even present as according to the said statute the minimum is provided as a mandate and the parties are not restricted from entering into any agreement better than what has been provided in the statute. Accordingly, this Constitution Petition is dismissed in respect to the claim of the deceased only as although it is stated that the injured person has lost its ability to work being severely wounded it is not found possible to provide the same interpretation for him. The portion of penalty however, on account of the above interpretation requirement is not found available and is so ordered to be not available to the respondent No.1.

9. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner however, the availability of the amount shall be available to the respondent No. 1 after a period of sixty (60) days.

10. Instant petition stands disposed of in the above terms. MQ/M-48/Sindh Petition dismisse