1989 PLP 509 (PLC)

‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(3‑a)‑‑Payment of legal dues‑‑Rules with regard to payment of legal dues and Group Insurance were for beneft of legal heirs of deceased work men‑‑Authority, held, was duty bound to see that payment was made. Shakil Lari for, Applicants. These two revision applications have been filed under section 38(3‑a) of the I.R.O., 1969, against single order, dated 13‑3‑1988 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Central Division, Karachi, who by his impugned order awarded to the respondent a sum of Rs.13,00 on account of Group Insurance and Rs.14,53(i on account of delayed wages and Rs.200 as cost. He also awarded Rs.20 in cacti case as cost of proceedings. Total amount, thus, comes to Rs.27,770.

2. I have heard Mr. Shakil Lari, learned counsel appearing for the applicants.

3. The brief facts leading to these proceedings are that respondent Mst. Jahana Khatoon is widow of Muhammad Umer Farooq, a workman of the applicants who died while in their service on 14‑3‑1981. The respondent approached the applicants for payment of the legal dues of the deceased workman and also Group Insurance. She was paid Rs.2,000 and was kept on hopes for the balance. Failing to receive balance she instituted two cases Nos. 17/84 and 60/84 before the learned Authority for Payment of Wages for payment of the Group Insurance and legal dues of her deceased husband. These two cases were filed by Mst. Jahana Khatoon through her Attorney Mr. Jamal Usmani.

4. The applicants contested the cases and raised preliminary objection regarding genuineness of the Power of Attorney. Consequently the learned Authority directed personal appearance of Mst. Jahana Khatoon but she failed to appear therefore, her cases were dismissed on 13‑3‑1987. This order of dismissal was set aside by the Labour Court, Karachi. After which the learned Authority issued fresh notices to the applicants which were served upon them and service was held good by the order of the learned Authority. The case proceeded ex parte against the applic;ints and the impugned order was passed.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that notice was not served upon the applicant. The learned Authority has clearly held that the service was made upon the applicant, which was held good by order dated 12‑8‑1987. The impugned order was passed after six months of the order holding service as good. The applicants are normally expected to have been present before the learned Labour Court where aforesaid order or dismissal of cases was set aside. As such it was their duty to find out as to what happened to cases after remand of the cases to learned Authority. All the circumstances clearly point out that the order of the learned authority that the service was good was not erroneous

6. I have carefully considered the impugned order and find no illegality or impropriety to call for the correctness by this Tribunal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, in my opinion, both the revision applications are not maintainable and are dismissed in limine.

7. However, doubts were again expressed by the learned counsel with' respect to genuineness of the Power of Attorney. The rules with regard to payment of legal dues and Group Insurance are for the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased workman. As such it is the duty of the learned Authority to see that the amount in question is paid to the respondent in person or to legally constituted Attorney. The applicant therefore is directed to deposit the amount with the learned Authority who is to make payment to the respondent or her attorney keeping in view the above observations after satisfying himself about the genuineness of the person who receives the payment. M.Y.H./1404/Lb. S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.