2013 PLP 162 (PLC)

ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.

Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14-4-2010 in Case No.8 of 2009(10) passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, East Division, Karachi, on the sole ground that the order passed by the authority was wholly without jurisdiction and the said authority had no powers to review its own order under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner Naveed son of Abdul Jabbar was permanent workmen of the respondent No.2 Jumma Khan within the meaning of Standing Order as well as I.R.O., 2002. On 5-10-2009, the petitioner during the employment of respondent No.2 met with an accident and his three fingers plus thumb were amputated in accident, only little finger remained in the hand. The petitioner was admitted in Jinnah Hospital on 6-10-2009 and remained under treatment till 8-10-2009.

3. On 13-10-2009, the father of the petitioner moved an application before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, East Division, Karachi, who after hearing the respondent Jumma Khan, who admitted in his affidavit that the accident had taken place in his factory, and considering the accident report allowed the application by order dated 14-12-2009 in Case No.8 of 2009(10) holding that the applicant lost 30% of three fingers plus 40% of thumb totaling 70% and accordingly awarded compensation to the petitioner at Rs.1,40,000 and directed the management of the respondent to deposit the same with the authority within thirty days for onwards payment to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 14-4-2010, respondent No.2 Jumma Khan moved an application to the authority for review of the said order dated 14-12-2009 on the ground that he was seriously ill and undergone for medical treatment therefore he failed to appear before the Court at that time. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation without notice to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 14-4-2010 reviewed its earlier order dated 14-12-2009 and dismissed the case holding that the labour leader has misguided the Court. He further held in the order that the petitioner is Afghan citizen and living in Pakistan illegally without any work permission from Government of Pakistan.

4. Miss Shahida Ghani Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the authority neither under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 nor under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 had any powers to review its own order as the said two Acts do not authorize the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation to exercise such powers. In support of her contentions she has placed reliance on the following cases:

(1) Messrs HUSSAIN TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. v. AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGEST ACT and others (1987 PLC 636) (2) Mst. NOOR BEGUM v. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT and 2 others (2010 PLC 1) (3) WAZIR CHAND and another v. EMPEROR (AIR 1930 Lahore 658)

5. Mr. Gohar Iqbal counsel for the respondent No.1 has argued that as the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable before the authority in the proceedings arising out of Payment of Wages Act as well as the proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore, such authority can in any appropriate case exercise the powers of review contained in section 114 of Civil Procedure Code. He has referred to section 18 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and section 23 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and contended that the authority had the jurisdiction to review its own order.

6. I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant papers. I have also consulted with Section 18 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and section 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which make the provisions of C.P.C. applicable to the proceedings before the authority concerned for a very limited purpose which are mentioned in those sections. The purpose for which the C.P.C. is applicable to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and Workmen's Compensation Act are limited to the taking of evidence on oath, for enforcing attendance of the witnesses and compelling production of documents before the authority concerned. In view of this limited scope of the application of C.P.C. to the proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act and Workmen's Compensation Act, I am of the considered view that the provisions of review contained in C.P.C. were not applicable before the authority. If any reference is needed in this regard the case of Messrs Ahmed Food Industries v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (1974 PLC 225) and Mst. Noor Begum (quoted supra) may be referred wherein it is explicitly held that the power of review is not a matter of mere procedure but is a question of jurisdiction and the same cannot be exercised unless expressly conferred on the Tribunal by the statute under which it is exercising power. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority does not possess any inherent power to set-aside its previous order for compensation made by him.

7. In view of my above discussion, the impugned order dated 14-4-2010 in Case No.8 of 2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, East Division, Karachi, is without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. Therefore, the petition stands allowed accordingly. KMZ/N-30/K Petition allowed.