Find a Lawyer

MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAKARWAL COLLIERIES LIMITED, PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LAHORE versus EID GUL

Section 3, 10 and 30 of the Employees 'Compensation Act, 1923 were paid to the Commissioner of Compensation for Work in Disability, the payment of employees' compensation, due to compensation for the work which he suffered during his service. The employer did not prove on the basis that the employee lost his sight due to some accidents during his service. That no notice required under Section 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act 1923 was issued to the employer by the employee and within three years of the alleged injury case, the claim for compensation was not preferred by the employee. The evidence on the record completely proved that the employees sustained the injury due to the stone falling on his head during his service, which resulted in bleeding from his eyes and ears. Due to this his eyesight deteriorated and hearing ability was delayed till date to report the accident to the employer. Expressing concern, employees may be forgiven for the fact that poor working class members such as employees are usually satisfied with such activities and events that are part of their life's plan or destiny. It is believed that such people were alienated from the law. And they also hesitated to express the wrath of the people in power law that the court should not: technically be concerned with. Matters relating to matters relating to the welfare of the poor laborers, otherwise the section 10 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1923, excludes general rules and exclusions from the Commissioner. law firms from Gharo lawyer