1984 PLP 888 (PLC(CS))
NAZIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER Versus MESSRS KOHINOOR MILLS
| Citation | 1984 PLP 888 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER Versus MESSRS KOHINOOR MILLS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 888 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 888 (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 888 (PLC(CS)) (NAZIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER Versus MESSRS KOHINOOR MILLS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sadiq Ali Hashmi for Appellants. ‑
- Naeem Bokhari for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 12th June, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 10‑B (4)‑Claim of group insurance amount=Appeal against order of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Commissioner rejecting claim of heirs on plea that death of worker was not natural and was due to over intoxication‑Chemical Exami ner's report indicating insecticide belonging to chlorinated hydrocar bon group‑Neither Chemical Examiner nor. Doctor performing post mortem examination examined before Commissioner‑In absence of evidence that deceased worker voluntarily took some intoxicant, in circumstances, held, it could not be said that it was not a case of natural death‑Deceased administered intoxicant by some one else, heirs, held, would be entitled to group insurance money Order of Commissioner, in circumstances, set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision afresh after thorough inquiry.
Judgment & Decree
The appeals captioned above emanate from the orders, dated 12th December, 1981 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Faisalabad, whereby the petitions for the recovery of group insurance amounts were dismissed. As the facts of the two appeals are common, they are being disposed of together.
2. Akbar Ali and Ashiq Ali were the employees of the respondent. They died on the night between 5th and 6th April, 1981. Nazir Ahmad, father of Asbiq Ali and Wali Muhammad, father of Xkbar Ali claimed group insurance amounts under Standing Order 10‑B (4) of the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968.
3. Wali Muhammad stated in cross‑examination in his own petition that both the deceased had taken liqour and eaten Laddoo (a sweetmeat). But Nazir Ahmad did not state so in his own petition. The learned Commissioner has held that the death of the deceased not being natural, their heirs are not entitled to any compensation as group insurance. The opinion of the Chemical Examiner, as mentioned in the post‑Mortem report, is insecticide belonging to chlorinated hydrocarbon group. Neither the Chemical Examiner nor the doctor, who did post‑mortem examination was examined to explain the contents of the stomach to corroborate or contradict the statement of Wali Muhammad. Moreover, it is doubtful if Wali Muhammad had actually seen the deceased taking any liq0ur and Laddoo, because just in the following sentence he said that people told him that two dead bodies were lying in the fields and when he went there, he found that they were of Akbar Ali and Ashiq Ali. If he did not see the deceased taking liqour, then his evidence is based upon hit guess work and opinion. In the absence of evidence that the deceased had voluntarily taken some intoxicants, it could not be said that it was not a case of natural death. If some intoxicants were administered to the deceased by .q some one else, their heirs would be entitled to the group insurance money. The learned Commissioner without making proper enquiry has held that the deceased did not die of natural death.
4. So far as the case of Nazir Ahmad is concerned, there is absolu tely no evidence that Ashiq Ali, deceased, had voluntarily taken any intoxicant because the solitary witness Nazir Ahmad showed his ignorance about anything which may have been taken by Ashiq Ali, deceased.
5. As a result of the observations made above, I accept both the appeals and setting aside the impugned orders of the learned Commissioner B for Workmen's Compensation, remand the cases for further thorough enquiry and re‑decision. Appeals accepted.