1977 PLP 349 (PLC)
DIAMOND ICE FACTORY Versus SHER BANG
| Citation | 1977 PLP 349 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIAMOND ICE FACTORY Versus SHER BANG |
| Primary Law | Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 349 (PLC)?
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 1977 PLP 349 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 349 (PLC) (DIAMOND ICE FACTORY Versus SHER BANG). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riazul Hasan for Appellant.
- S. A. Channa for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 3 & 30‑Fatal accident‑Liability for payment of compensation Claim of dependant for compensation allowed (by Commissioner) and amount already deposited by employee‑Contention that since deceased was insured liability for payment of compensation was transferred to Insurance Company‑Liability of employer as well as Insurance Company, held, coextensive and amount of compensation can be claimed from either of them‑Employer, having already deposited amount entitled to claim same from Insurance Company.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. WCK‑7 of 1974, decided on 25th June 1975. ‑‑ Ss. 3 & 30‑Fatal accident‑Liability for payment of compensation Claim of dependant for compensation allowed (by Commissioner) and amount already deposited by employee‑Contention that since deceased was insured liability for payment of compensation was transferred to Insurance Company‑Liability of employer as well as Insurance Company, held, coextensive and amount of compensation can be claimed from either of them‑Employer, having already deposited amount entitled to claim same from Insurance Company. Riazul Hasan for Appellant. S. A. Channa for Respondent. This is an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. Qasim, husband of the respondent, was in the employment of the appellant. He died as a result of the injuries received during the course of and arising out of employment. The respondent filed the claim and Rs. 10,000 were allowed. Aggrieved by this the present appeal had been filed.
3. The only ground taken before me by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the deceased was insured the liability for the payment of compensation was transferred to the Insurance Company and although an application was moved in the Labour Court for impleading Insurance Company as a party but the application was wrongly rejected. I have consi dered this contention and I am of the view that although the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation but the liability of the appellant was not thereby discharged. The liability of the appellant as well as Insurance Company is co‑extensive and the amount of compensation can be claimed from either of them. The appellant is entitled to claim the amount from the Insurance Company and, if so advised, may institute suitable proceeding against the insurance company as the amount of compensation has already been deposited by the appellant. The appeal is dismissed.