1984 PLP 1416 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑S. 19‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 10‑B‑Compensa tion of deceased workman‑Question of jurisdiction‑Case remanded to determine whether deceased was insured under Group Insurance Scheme or not. Syed Sajjad for Appellant. Kh. Tariq Masood for Respondents. Date of hearing : 27th February, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 4th April, 1979 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Lahore, whereby a total amount of Rs. 15,000 was allowed as compensation for the loss of the life of Eid Muhammad," deceased, out of which amount, the appellant was made liable for Rs. 6,000 and respondent No. 7 was made liable for paying Rs. 9,000.

2. The petition was opposed by respondent No. 7 but no written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant. The appellant appeared on two dates but on 12th March, 1979 nobody appeared on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against ex parte. Respondent No. 7 in its written reply contended that the appellant was responsible to pay the amount clamed by the heirs of the deceased. Abdur Razzak appearing as R. W. 1 stated that the deceased had been insured for Rs. 6,000 with the appellant and that the deceased died within the insured period, therefore, the appellant was liable to the extent of Rs. 6,

000. He also said that the remaining Rs. 9,000 respondent No. 7 was willing to pay. Mst. Barkat Bibi, respondent No. 1, however, stated that the deceased had not been insured under the Group Insurance Scheme, which was necessary for the employer. Learned Commissioner did not frame any issue on the point whether the appellant was also liable to share the compensation. No copy of the insurance policy was brought on the record. by respondent No.

7. Oral statement made by Abdur Razzaq stood controverted by the statement of Mst. Barkat Bibi. If the deceased was insured then Standing Order 10‑B of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable and the learned Commissioner would have no jurisdiction. Clause (S) of Standing Order 10‑B clearly states that all claims of a workman 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 the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Clause (4) says that where an employer fails to have a permanent workman employed by him insured in the manner laid down in clauses (1), (2) and (3) and if the workman suffers death or injury arising out of contingencies mentioned in clause (1), the employer would pay, in case of death, to the heirs of the workman, or in the case of injury, to the workman himself such sum of money as would have been payable by the insurance company had such a workman been insured. It is clear that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has jurisdiction only if the case falls under Standing Order 10‑B. Standing Order 10‑B applies only when the workman has not been insured under the Group Insurance Scheme. If the workman had been insured then Standing Order 10‑B was not applicable and in that case the learned Commissioner had jurisdiction. The question, therefore, goes to the root of the case and involves the jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner, I,I accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner, remand the case with the direction that after affording opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence on the point whether the deceased had been insured or not by respondent No. 7 under the Group Insurance Scheme, the case be re-decided m accordance with law. M. I. Appeal accepted, case remanded.