EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HIGHWAY DIVISION, THATTA Versus MUHAMMAD YAMIN

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 10‑5‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI Hyderabad, who had dismissed an appeal of the appellant against an impugned order, dated 8‑2‑1986, passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under Payment of Wages Act, district Dadu and Thatta at Hyderabad, granting the payment of compensation amounting to Rs.10,50D.00 within 30 days from the date of the order to the respondent, namely, Muhammad Yamin.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to be a permanent workman of the appellant establishment in his capacity as Driver Road Roller and his services were governed by the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. He claimed that on 23‑11‑1983, while he was on duty, he met with a serious accident wherein his left leg was fractured and one Assistant Engineer, Highway Division, namely, Hamdullah had died. The respondent claimed that thereafter he was removed to Hospital and subsequently was operated and remained there upto 30‑11‑1983 and thereafter getting treatment till 14‑6‑1984, he was declared fit to join duties, vide Fitness Certificate, dated 15‑6‑1984 and had joined the duties on 17‑6‑1984 and therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 10‑B, he was entitled to get amount towards compulsory group insurance as well as injury benefits. Thus, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had allowed this amount to the respondent.

3. The appellant department did not resist the petition properly therefore, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held them ex parte and passed the order, dated 8‑2‑1986. Being aggrieved with order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, and there too, the appellant remained absent. After hearing the respondent, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

4. Today, when the appeal was called for hearing. None on behalf of the appellant was present. Mr. Ibrahim Soomro Advocate is present and states that he is not appearing in the present appeal and someone has to come from Karachi. However, I have carefully perused the impugned order and find nothing wrong in it. The contentions of the appellant in his appeal has no force. I would, therefore, maintain both the impugned orders and direct the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.10,500 to the respondent as prayed by him forthwith.

5. For the reasons stated by me above. I would dismiss the present appeal in limine.

A. E. /1074/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.