1984 PLP 927 (PLC(CS))
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
| Citation | 1984 PLP 927 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 927 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 927 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 927 (PLC(CS)) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ali Muhammad Khan for Appellant.
- Muhammad Ashraj for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 6th July, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 10‑B (4) & (5)‑Group insurance money and insurance Claim for‑Can be settled by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation‑Order of Commissioner dismissing application on grounds of jurisdiction set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision on merits.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. O. 10‑B (4) & (5)‑Group insurance money and insurance Claim for‑Can be settled by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation‑Order of Commissioner dismissing application on grounds of jurisdiction set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision on merits. Ali Muhammad Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Ashraj for Respondent. Date of hearing : 6th July, 1983. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 30th May, 1982 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Faisalabad, whereby the petition of the appellant for compensation for the loss of his eye‑sight was dismissed on the sole ground that Payment of Wages Act was not applicable to the respondent establishment.
2. The petition of the appellant is not for the recovery of any delayed or deducted wages but for group insurance money for not getting him insured under Standing Order 10‑B of the Standing Orders Ordnance, 1968. According to Standing Order 10‑B (5), any claim under clause (4) of Standing Order 10‑B can be setteld in the manner prescribed for the " determination and recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to advance any convincing arguments in support of the impugned decision, which, therefore, is not sustainable.
3. As a result of what has been said above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned Commissioner, remand the case for decision on merits. A.E Case remanded.