SITARA BEGUM Versus RAHWALI SUGAR MILLS
This is an appeal preferred under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order dated 4‑12‑1984 recorded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Gujranwala, whereby the petition of the appellant for the with drawal of group insurance, gratuity, provident fund etc. was dismissed.
2. The appellant claims to be the real sister of Imam Din, deceased. Mst. Shamim Ara claims to be the niece of the deceased. In the beginning the deceased had declared the appellant as his dependent to receive gratuity and other benefits but later on is alleged to have substituted Mst. Shamim Ara, respondent, in her place. At both the occasions the deceased described the appellant as his sister‑in‑law and not sister or having any other blood relation. The document is Ex.P‑11/2. So far as Ex.P‑I/2 is concerned, this is more or less an admitted document. Even according to Mst. Shamim Ara, in the beginning the appellant was declared by the deceased as his dependent. In this document the deceased described the appellant as his brother's wife and not as his real sister. The appellant has come forward with a false claim that she is the real sister of the deceased. She has not been able to tell the name of her grandfather. This fact that the deceased while declaring her as his dependent did not mention her as his real sister amply shows that the appellant is not the real sister of the deceased and is his brother's wife. Unmarried orphan persons usually are brought up and looked after by their brothers' wives and thus are very much affiliated with them and some of them address them as mothers. This appears to be the reason that the deceased who was admittedly unmarried and may be an orphan declared the appellant as his dependent. So, she is not his real sister and thus so far as insurance amount is concerned she is not entitled to it. According to Standing Order 10‑B(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, only heirs are entitled to the said allowance. The appellant not being the heir, her claim to the insurance amount is wrong.
3. So far as second declaration of the deceased namely Ex.P‑1112 is concerned, its genuinity is doubtful. The signatures alleged to be of the deceased on it do not tally with the ones appearing on the admitted document Ex.P‑I/2 so far as characteristics are concerned. In the disputed signatures there is a pen lift mark in the end of the letter "Alif" of the word "Imam" but there is no such mark at the relevant placer in Ex.P‑I/2. In the signatures while making head of letter second "Meem" only pressure was given to the pen but while making the head of the said letter in the disputed signatures pen started from left to right, then upwards, thereafter, towards the left and then downward touching the place wherefrom the pen had started, with the result that an "eye" was formed, in letters "laam" and "yell in the undisputed signatures there is natural flow of pen without pen lifts and retouching marks, whereas in the disputed signatures retouching marks appear in letters "daal" and "eye" of word "( ). Characteristically letter "daal" is quite different. In the disputed document "daal" contains an eye which is absent in the admitted signatures. Likewise letter "noon" is also different. The words "( "'' )" in disputed documents are in different pen and ink from the ones with which signatures were put. Finger print science is complete, therefore, it would have been better if comparison had been got made of the disputed thumb‑impression with any thumb- impression present on any admitted document like undisputed leave applications or reports made by the deceased. The observations made about the characteristics of the signatures are only prima facie and not final and shall not prejudice the opinion of the expert.
4. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision so far as gratuity, provident fund etc., except insurance amount are concerned and the case is remanded with the direction that after getting comparison of disputed signatures and thumb‑impressions with admitted ones from some expert and after recording the evidence of the expert the case be decided afresh.
A.E./1369/Lb.S Case remanded.