1984 PLP 658 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus WAPDA AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1984 PLP 658 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus WAPDA AND ANOTHER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 658 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 658 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 658 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus WAPDA AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑S. O. 10‑B (v)‑Provisions applicable where employer failed to get employees insured under group insurance scheme‑Deceased workman insured and amount of group insurance paid to nominee without determination of legal heirs‑Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, in circumstances, held, rightly refused interference. Sadiq Ali Hashmi for Appellant. Date of hearing : 2nd May, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 31st January, 1982 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Faisalabad, whereby he dismissed the application of the appellant for the reason that as WAPDA had paid the amount of group insurance, pay, gratuity etc., to the widow of the deceased out of Court, the necessity of making any interference was not felt. The petition was dismissed leaving the appellant to seek remedy from the civil Court, if he was so advised.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has said that in the present case the deceased had been insured under the group insurance scheme. From the impugned order also it appears that the deceased had been insured and the amount of group insurance had been paid to the nominee without determi nation of the legal heirs. Standing Order 10‑B of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies where the employer has failed to get the employee concerned insured under the group insurance scheme and in such cases petition lies to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under clause (v) of the said Standing Order. But in cases where the deceased had been duly, insured by the employer under the group insurance scheme, Standing Order 10‑B is not applicable and thus the Commissioner had no jurisdic tion. In these circumstances the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation rightly refused to interfere although on different grounds. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.