1993 PLP 764 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing; 30th March, 1993. This appeal calls in question the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act at Hyderabad awarding the respondent compensation of Rs.42,000 for the total disability suffered in the course of employment, notwithstanding the fact that he was registered with the Social Security Institution and receiving a pension of Rs.656.10 under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen, in brief, are as follows.

2. The respondent was an employee of the appellants and on or about 21‑10‑1987 had suffered partial disability in his hand and was allowed a pension of Rs.537.04 with effect from 31‑121987.

3. After recovery, he had resumed work with the appellants and on 25‑1‑1989 met with another accident as a result of which his left hand was totally lost. He had appeared before the Medical Board on 20‑6‑1989 for the re‑assessment of the degree of loss of both hands, and this time 100% disability having been assessed, he was found entitled to receive a monthly pension of Rs.656.10 per month with effect from 24‑6‑1989. against the partial disablement pension of Rs.537.04.

4. Later on the respondent had made a demand of compensation in the sum of Rs.42,000 under the Workmen's Compensation Act through a grievance notice and finding no satisfaction had filed an application in 1990 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, which came to be allowed, culminating in this appeal.

5. The short question involved in this appeal is, whether notwithstanding the provision of sections 73 and 81 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, the respondent could claim the benefit under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

6. Raees M. Mushtaq, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the case of M/s. Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Rab Nawaz and others (1975 PLC 497), wherein this Tribunal after examining the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 came to the conclusion that the same were inconsistent with each other and therefore the remedy available under the Workmen's Compensation Act must give way to the remedy provided by the West Pakistan Social Security Ordinance. As a corollary, it was found that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act was barred by virtue of section 81 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965.

7. Mr. Ahsanul Haq Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent had, however, referred to the case of Metal Packages v. Inayat Ali (1975 PLC 827) wherein the contrary view had prevailed. That was also the view taken in M/s. Safura Textile Mills Ltd. v. Nek Muhammad and another 1992 PLC 348, decided at Camp Hyderabad on 18‑8‑1991, copy of which has been placed on the record. He had also referred to the case of Muhammad Hayat v. Sole Pakistan Ltd. and another (1990 PLC 401), which is a judgment of this Tribunal.

8. The matter stands concluded by the judgment in Sakina Bibi v. Crescent Textile Mills and others (PLD 1984 SC 241) in which the conflict between the Lahore and Karachi High Courts on the point came to be fully considered. A number of decisions from the various forums also came to be noticed and it was observed that "benefits under both the laws could be obtained under the law".

9. I am of the view that the conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner is in accordance with the approach in the case of Mst. Lal Jan v. M/s. Silver Paper Tube Co., Karachi reported in PLD 1974 Kar. 140, which was noticed and approved in the Supreme Court judgment referred to earlier.

10. Under the circumstances no exception can be taken with the view that prevailed with the learned Commissioner. I would therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2186/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.