1984 PLP 1695 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ S. 30 and Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), Ss. 15 & 17

Practice and procedure‑Cases under different enactments‑ Cannot be consolidated‑Failure to record evidence separately‑Illegality- Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation also invested with powers of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 ‑Disposing of two cases (1) pertaining to grant of group insurance under, S. O. 10‑B of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and (2) application under S. 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑Evidence recorded in one case copied in other and signed to give out as an original record of proceedings‑Documents exhibited ‑ in one case only but used in both cases‑Oral evidence copied from one case not speaking any thing relevant to other case‑Illegality, in circumstances, held, caused miscarriage of justice to both parties‑Oral as well as docu mentary evidence, in circumstances, held, should have been recorded separately and two cases under different enactments could not legally, be consolidated‑Impugned orders, in circumstance, set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal and cases remanded for de novo trial and re-decision separately. Asad Ullah Siddiqui for Appellant. ‑ Ch. Sardar Ali for Respondent. _ Date of hearing: 9th April, 1984. Out of the two cases captioned above one is appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act challenging the grant of Rs. 15,000 on account of Group Insurance under Standing Order 10‑B of Standing Orders. Ordinance, 1968 on account of the loss of life of Bashir Ahmad, deceased and the other is the revision challenging the orders passed under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act in appeal by the Labour Court and passed by the Authority under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. As the ground on which the appeal and the revision are being decided, is the same, both of them are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation who is, also invested with the powers of an Authority under the Payment of Wag Act did not properly hear the two cases. Evidence was recorded in on case and was copied in the other case and‑signed to give it out as an original record of proceedings. Documents were exhibited in one case on 'but were used in both the cases. As the two cases were not consolidated nor could be legally consolidated having been brought under two different enactments, evidence‑oral as well as documentary, should have been re corded separately. The result is that 'the case for recovery of Group Insurance under Standing Order 10‑B is without any evidence. The oral evidence copied from the case brought under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act does not speak of anything relevant to the case of Group Insurance. The illegality has caused miscarriage of justice to both the parties.

3. As a result, the appeal and the revision are accepted and setting aside the impugned orders, both the cases are remanded to the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation invested with the powers of Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for trial de novo and re-decision separately. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has applied for imp-leading the contractor as party. Since the cases have been remand ed, the learned Courts of original jurisdiction shall decide the said applications before proceeding with the cases. A. E. Cases remanded.