1988 PLP 548 (PLC)
Messrs CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA Versus DIRECTOR, SOCIAL SECURITY, FAISALABAD and another
| Citation | 1988 PLP 548 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Social Security Commissioner Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Asghar Khan, Commissioner Punjab Social Security Institution |
| Parties | Messrs CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA Versus DIRECTOR, SOCIAL SECURITY, FAISALABAD and another |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 548 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 548 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Social Security Commissioner Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Asghar Khan, Commissioner Punjab Social Security Institution.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 548 (PLC) (Messrs CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA Versus DIRECTOR, SOCIAL SECURITY, FAISALABAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Afzal Sheikh, Deputy Director (F & A) Local Office, Faisalabad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss.10 & 57‑‑Provincial Employees' Social Security (Employer's Returns and Records) Regulations, 1967, Regn.2(f)‑‑Employment injury‑‑Benefits for‑‑Secured worker declared medically unfit due to blindness‑‑Medical Board declaring that blindness occurred due to viral infection and not due to any employment injury, whereby worker was not entitled to any compensation‑‑On complaint before Commissioner Eye Specialist deposing that worker had developed "Corneal Scars" which could be due to complication of viral conjunctivitis corneal ulcer" or any injury to cornea‑‑Commissioner, in circumstances, coming to conclusion that it was a doubtful case‑‑Benefit of doubt, held, always goes in favour of aggrieved person and Institution must pay injury benefits to secured person. H.R. Haider for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
(i) the respondent No. 2 got an employment injury during the course of employment. He was treated by the Social Security Institution at Jaranwala and then at Faisalabad. (ii) The secured person was sent for medical check up to the Medical Board who declared him unfit permanently to perform any duty. (iii) The respondent No.2 lost his vision due to an employment injury and his disease is an employment injury, therefore, he is entitled for compensation under the law.
5. The respondent No.l on the other hand contended that (i) the complaint is not tenable as it has been filed by the management and not by the secured person if he was an aggrieved person. The complainant has no cause of action. (ii) The medical board comprising of three MOs including Eye Specialist declared that Mr. Dilawar Hussain the respondent No.2 lost his vision due to "viral infection" and not due to "employment injury". (iii) The complainant, employer of respondent No.2 did not inform the respondent No.1, the DLO, Faisalabad about accident for which he was bound to inform the Institution under Section 2. subsection (f) of Provincial Employees Social Security (Employer's Returns and Record) Regulation, 1967. " (iv) The respondent No.2 did not sustain any injury as provided under the definition of "employment injury" as provided under Section 2, subsection (10) of the Social Security Ordinance 1965. Neither it comes under the professional disease as laid down under Provincial Employees Social Security Occupational Diseases Regulations 1967. (v) The Medical Board declared the respondent No.2 unfit permanently not because of "employment injury" but due to "viral infection".
6. The respondent, therefore, contended that complaint made by M/s. Crescent Jute Products Jaranwala be dismissed.
7. Dr. Hafiz M. Ilyas Eye Specialist who was also the member of the Board was summoned. He stated before us that in 1981 Mr. Dilawar Hussain came to him. He had developed "Corneal Scars" in his both eyes. This "Corneal Scars" can be due to complication of "Viral Conjunctivitis Corneal Ulcer" or any injury to the cornea.
8. After going through the facts of the case and hearing the parties I come to the conclusion that it is doubtful case and benefit of doubts always goes in favour of the aggrieved person, therefore, Institution must pay injury benefit to the secured persons.
9. The complaint is accepted and disposed of with the observation given above. ??????????? A.E. /324/Lb.P???????????????????????????????????????????????? Complaint accepted