SAID CLINIC, KARACHI Versus NAEEMA JAMSHED
DECISION
This appeal calls in question the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, dated 10th of December, 1991, passed .on an application under Standing Order 10‑B of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 read with section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The circumstances forming the background of the dispute are as under.
2. One Jamshed Ali Baber was working with the respondents as Administrative Assistant/A.A.O., for a number of years and died on 14‑4‑1986. His widow laid the following claim before the learned Commissioner.
"(1) Unpaid salary for March, April, 1986 Rs.6,000
(2) Salary for unavailed leave for the year Rs.12,000
(3) Unpaid bonus under 10‑C, S.O. Ordinance
1968 for three years. Rs.9,000
(4) 10 months gratuity for 14 years and Rs.30,000 over six months services at the rate of
20 days salary for each year of service.
(5) The amount of Group Insurance under
10‑B, S.O. Ordinance, 1968. Rs.15,000
3. The claim came to be resisted and one of the objections taken was that the application was incompetent as the respondent's clinic was not a commercial establishment. The objection was upheld and the application was dismissed on that score alone.
4. This led to an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the order was set aside. A Constitution petition was thereupon filed challenging this order. The case was remanded to the Labour Court on the ground that questions of fact and law were involved and no evidence had been led in the case. It was therefore remanded. It was thereafter that the witnesses were examined and the impugned order was passed allowing only the claims of Group Insurance in the sum of Rs.45,000 and Rs.2,000 towards the other leaves.
5. An objection was raised by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal did not lie at all, as only such appeals could be filed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation which have been specified under section 30 thereof namely:
"30. Appeal (1) An appeal shall lie to the Tribunal from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:‑
(a) An order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half‑monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half‑monthly payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependents of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependent.
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provision of subsection (2) of section 12; or
(e) An order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:"
He has also referred decisions in cases of Government of Sindh through Executive Engineer, Feeder Division v. Mst. Zohra Begum and others 1981 PLC 490, M/s. Olympia Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Syed Shah 1981 PLC 685, Karachi Transport Corporation v. Moula Bux and another 1981 PLC 844, Shermat Khan v. M/s. Shabina Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi 1982 PLC 603, State Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Mst. Khatoon and others 1975 PLC 777. These are all decisions from this Tribunal and this has been the consistent view all along as will be seen from the reference made in the judgments. He has also referred to a judgment of our High Court namely M/s. Afzal Stores Ltd. v. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and, others 1982 PLC 641, in which the same view had been taken. This being the state of law; nothing having been said to the contrary the objection must prevail.
6. I will, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
H.B.T./2145/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.