2001 PLP 59 (PLC)

Ghulam Rabbani for Appellant. M.A. Javed for counsel for Naseer Ahmad Qureshi for Respondent. This Court had by a detailed judgment announced op 25‑9‑1999, accepted Mst. Nasreen Akhtar's appeal, setting aside the order, dated 16‑6‑1998 of the worthy Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Sargodha. Direction had been made to the respondent to make deposit of amount of compensation to the tune of one lac rupees. It was, however, not complied, with and w&‑rants of arrest were issued against Khair Din, through the agency of the Labour Court, Sargodha. Khair Din, through his learned counsel, Mr. Naseer Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate, filed an objection petition, on 13‑1‑2000, and on the following day the warrants were suspended. The objection petition was replied on 21‑2‑2000. Arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the parties on 15‑5‑2000. I proceed to dispose of the objection petition by this order.

2. Actually the Hon'ble High Court has clinched the issue by dismissing the writ petition of Khair Din (No. 23582 of 1999), on 17‑12‑1999. Khair Din claims to‑have agitated the matter further before the august apex Court of the Country, but so far neither the leave to appeal has been granted, nor has any stay order been issued in favour of Khair Din.

3. Khair Din was the lessee of the stone quarry, in the area of Chak No.

123. S.B. Sargodha, and although the previous lease ended on 5‑5‑1997, he got the lease afresh in the second term w.e.f. 24‑5‑1997. Mishap occurred at 7‑30 a.m. on 31‑5‑1997, at a site adjunct with the hillock, projections or overhanging strata of which fell down, gravely injuring Naeem Akhtar and Zahid Hussain. The latter was lucky to escape death, while the former could not survive. Even if someone else, Zikria, contractor, or Muhammad Ayub 'ghatwala', had to remove and carry the stone pieces elsewhere, it was mainly the concerned of Khair Din, who after all could not afford to have the sliced stone pieces remain on the ground over any length of period. Those had to be regularly removed from there and transported elsewhere. The tractor‑trolly, on which the stones had to be carried, might be belonging to someone else, it was being handled by Naeem Akhtar and Zahid Hussain, and it did not meet the accident on way from the site of the hill elsewhere. Naeem Akhtar was directly hit by the falling stones, for proper upkeep and disposal of which; no adequate arrangements had been made by the person holding the quarry contract (Khair Din). It was so testified by the Inspector Mines, according to whom there were no systematic and regular inspections and no well‑managed blast operations, with the result that the stones, atop the hill, got loosened and more often than not were in almost hanging or falling posture. Who else was responsible for the fatal injuries sustained by Naeem Akhtar, and quite serious injuries suffered by Zahid Hussain, if Khatr Din was not to blame ? Tractor‑trolly might belong to any one (in this case to one Zikria), but the same, by reason of its mishandling, was not responsible for infliction of injuries, on Naeem and Zahid. Zikria, as such, or Ayub 'ghatwala' was not required to indemnify the wounded man and in particular the dead person's dependants. The tractor‑trolly was engaged in and was doing work for Khair Din's operations of stone‑cutting followed by stone‑collection and stone‑transportation. By no stretch of imagination .the case was covered under the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act, nor had the civil Court anything to do with the matter.

4. Even if Khair Din was not the owner or the 'operator' of the tractor -trolly, and even if removal of stones from the site was not his primary concern, although plainly it was indirectly and relatably, at least, responsible for removal of the stones from the site in the trolly was Khair Din himself, who could by no stretch of imagination escape his liability for what happened at the site. It may be the Will of God Almighty, it may be just a mishap, but Khair Din could not be treated and declared innocent in the matter. He could not, as already observed, evade or escape his liability for Naeem Akhtar's tragic death; and it is he who has to indemnify and compensate the dependents of the deceased.

5. The contention of Khair Din's counsel that the Compensation Commissioner or this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter has been overruled by the Hon'ble High Court (vide short order, dated 17‑12‑1999). This forum has given reasons in the decision, dated 25‑9‑1999, in fixing liability of Khair Din, holding him liable to pay to the widow, Nasreen Akhtar, compensation in the amount of one lac rupees. Any change in the decision would amount to reviewing the same, for which, I do not at all find sound basis or any good ground: Khair Din's objection petition, dated 13‑1‑2000 is hereby rejected.

6. Coercive process issued against Khair Din on 1‑12‑1999, and repeated on 13‑1‑2000, shall issue afresh, without any amount of delay, for 13‑9‑2000. In doing so, this forum will be acting as the executing Court; and it is so well‑known that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Endeavour of the quarry‑contractor (lease‑holder) Khair Din made to prolong the agony of the widow, by not parting with the sum of compensation, must be consciously and resolutely frustrated. H.B.T./19/P. (Lab: Trib) Order accordingly