1999 PLP 42 (PLC)

The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Gujrat, on 17‑11‑1996, awarded to Mst. Naseem Akhtar compensation in the amount of Rs.1,00,

000. Mst. Naseem Akhtar had laid claim to this amount, pleading that her late husband, Muhammad Akram lineman Grade‑I, had met a fatal accident, while performing official duties on 3‑1‑1994, when he had been ordered by the S.D.O. to go to a village, along the highway, for doing certain job, and report back. He had to remove or rectify certain defects in the electricity line. Javed Akhtar lineman and Muhammad Aslam, Assistant Lineman deposed in favour of the claimant. Mr. Umer Gul Afridi, S.D.O. (E), WAPDA, Jalalpur Jattan (District Gujrat), appearing for the Establishment, also testified to the effect that the poor person was on official duty. The learned 'Commissioner' has referred to a case decided by the High Court of Madras (India), reported as 1968 PLC 643, in which case a workman was deputed by his officer to bring dinner from his house and in the process he was knocked down by a lorry on a highway. It was considered to be integral part of the service, even though the workman had been sent for performance of what could be called a private task. Another case PLD 1967 Karachi 547, decided by Justice Noor‑ul‑Arfeen, has also been referred to. In that case, in similar circumstances, the accident was held to have occurred in the course of employment. Compensation was allowed to the workman, in the said case.

2. Beyond any manner of doubt, Muhammad Akram was a workman, bearing in mind the nature of his duties. Reliance has rightly been placed on 1997 SCMR 1128, holding that WAPDA employees engaged in generation, distribution, transmission or supply of electric energy were considered as workers, in terms of the provisions of the Factories Act and Workmen's Compensation Act. Irrespective of non‑observance of safety measures and precautionary measures, by the employee, the employer was held liable to pay compensation to him. As such, the finding arrived at by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation can hardly be interfered with.

3. WAPDA preferred an appeal before Punjab Labour Court at Gujranwala, which Court on 20‑5‑1997 returned the appeal for its presentation before proper forum, observing that the appeal before the Labour Court was not maintainable. Thereupon, the instant appeal was filed by WAPDA Authorities before this forum, on 16‑6‑1997. A number of cases which has been pronounced by superior Courts that persuade of a cause in a wrong forum would not entitle the aggrieved party to claim exclusion of the time spent here from the prescribed period of limitation. Matter was decided by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on 17‑11‑1996 and this Tribunal has been approached by way of an appeal, on 16‑6‑1997, as already said. The appeal, thus, must be taken to be palpably time‑barred. Holding the appeal to be barred by the law of limitation, as also devoid of merit, the same is hereby dismissed with costs. H.B.T./933/LB.P Appeal dismissed.