EMPLOYER/MANAGER FINE GAS LIMITED, LAHORE versus RANA GHULAM YASIN
Section 2 (n) (ii), 3 and 10 of the employee's complete disability due to a heart attack during the course of the job, resisted by the employee claiming compensation of Rs. Went and was told that there was no accident during the employment of employees with the employer. That the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide on the employee's claim because the employee was not a worker under section 2 (n) (ii) of the Employees Workers' Compensation Act, 1923. And that the employees did not act on the notice required to the employer under clause 10 (1) of the Act, 1923, which denied the employee's right to a photo statement, when he said that when he was in his duties at the employer's office While performing, he suffered a heart attack. This employee stayed in the hospital for about a week and because of this he never joined his duties because his right leg was paralyzed, in which case the employer was not required to serve, because he refused. Maybe the employer knew. The employees 'visit to Section 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, fully demonstrated that such notice need not be presented in every case, as it can be prevented in many situations, the employer On the basis of this the Commissioner's jurisdiction objected that the employee could not file his claim for compensation as he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 7980 which was Rs. 3000 in section 2 (n) (II) of the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923. Was amended by the Finance Act, 2007, with the result that the definition of a laborer was increased in scope, so that every The worker can be included irrespective of his monthly wages
