Mst. NAEEMA JAMSHED Versus Messrs S REED CLINIC

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 2-7-1987, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Central Division, Karachi, who had dismissed the application of the appellant filed by her under order S.O. 10-B of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for want of jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed that her late husband,namely, Jamshed Ali Baber was a permanent employee of the respondent working as administrative assistant in his Clinic and was drawing a monthly salary of about Rs.3,000 at the time of his death. The appellant claimed that as the respondent's Clinic was a commercial establishment earning a huge profits by way of providing medical treatment to the patients against reasonable amount of fee and other charges and there were also more than 50 persons employed in the Clinic of the respondent, therefore, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were applicable to the case of the appellant and she was entitled to maintain her application before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming an amount of Rs.72,000 on account of salary, unavailed leave, bonus, gratuity anti group insurance etc.

3. The respondent resisted the petition on the ground that as the Clinic was neither an industry nor a commercial establishment for the purposes of Standing Orders Ordinance, therefore, the provisions of Standing Orders were not applicable to the case of the appellant and the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had no jurisdiction to entertain such claim which was liable to be dismissed.

4. As a legal point was involved in the present case, therefore, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has decided the issue in favour of the respondent's Clinic, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard, Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent No.l, Saeed Ahmad, in person and have carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim the learned Advocate for the appellant contended that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has erred in finding that Standing Orders were not applicable to the respondent's Clinic without recording evidence about the nature of work and the status of the respondent and further that the impugned order is not lawful and proper, particularly in the circumstances that it was passed even without a notice to the appellant. In support of his pleadings, M.Mirza Muhammad Kazim the learned Advocate for the appellant h is referred to me a case of Burjor Anklearia Nursing Home v. Mo in Ahmed Siddiqi, reported in 1982 P L C at page 137. In view of this factual and legal position, I would therefore, hold that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has a jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case of the appellant and so, I would set aside the present impugned order. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Central Division, Karachi is directed to decide the case of the appellant on merits within a period of one month.

A. E. /1110/Lb.S ??? ????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed,