1988 PLP 665 (PLC(CS))
CORPORATION and another Versus ABDUL RAZAK CHUGHTAI and 5 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 665 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Ladhi, |
| Parties | CORPORATION and another Versus ABDUL RAZAK CHUGHTAI and 5 others |
| Primary Law | Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 665 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 665 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Ladhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 665 (PLC(CS)) (CORPORATION and another Versus ABDUL RAZAK CHUGHTAI and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafiqul Islam for Appellants.
- Shabbir Ahmed for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: lst March 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss.22 & 30‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.0.12 (6)‑‑Gratuity to deceased worker‑‑Direction to deposit gratuity not covered by S.30 of Workmen's, Compensation Act‑‑Appeal brought under S.30 of Workmen's Compensation Act and directed against order of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to deposit an amount for being paid to dependants of deceased worker as gratuity under Standing Order No.12(6) was not covered by S.30 of the Act‑‑Appeal, held, would lie to Tribunal under S.30 from direction issued‑under S.22 of Act‑ Direction to deposit gratuity‑‑Appeal not covered by any clause of S.30 was returned to appellant for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal brought under section 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act against the order dated 5‑11‑1986 recorded by learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Lahore whereby the appellant has been directed to deposit Rs.17,164 for being paid to the respondents as gratuity under Order 12(6) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The ground of the claim was that Abdul Sattar Chughtai was an employee of the appellant and had expired while in service. Clause (8) of Order 12 provides that under such circumstances the employer has to pay gratuity to the dependents of the deceased worker. Clause (9) provides that if the employer fails to comply with the provisions of clause (8) an application can be made to the Commissioner 'workmen's Compensation.
2. The present appeal does not lie inasmuch as it is not covered by section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The appeal lies to this Tribunal under section 30 from the direction issued under section 22 by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation. Since the petition A was not brought under section 22 but on the basis of Order 12 clauses (8) and (9) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the appeal does not lie to this Tribunal. Even otherwise, the appeal is not covered by the four corners of section 30 which reads as under:‑ "30. (1) An appeal shall lie to the (Tribunal) from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:‑ (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half‑monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions; It is manifest from the re‑production of section 30 that direction to deposit gratuity is not covered by any clause of the said section J.
3. As a result the memo of the appeal is directed to be returned to the appellant for want of jurisdiction. M. Y.H./337/Lb.P Appeal returned.