Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MESSRS DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI versus AKHTAR ALI


Section 2 (g) and 30 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1923, with the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965) have been read. Compensation for disabled workers under section 81 has been obtained under West Pakistan Employees. Held the Commissioner, under 1923, in this case the Commissioner's order was challenged in appeal, limited, not applicable to the unapproved order

1979 P L C 114

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind)

Present : Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal

MESSRS DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI

versus

AKHTAR ALI

Appeal No. WCK‑1 of 1977, decided on 3rd May 1977.

Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑

----Ss. 2 (g) & 30 read with West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965) S. 81‑Compensation for disability‑Workmen secured under West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965‑Entitled to compensation under Social Security Scheme‑Jurisdic tion of Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, held, barred by virtue of S. 81 of West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965‑Commissioner's order in such case challenged in appeal‑Question of limitation, held, not applicable to order passed without jurisdiction.

Messrs Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi v. Rab Nawaz and another 1975 P L C 497 ref.

Khurshid Ahmed for Appellant.

M. M. Mani for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 13th April 1977.

DECISION

This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act awarding compensation to the respon dent.

2. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant. He sustained an injury in his left eye in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment on 2nd May, 1975. He claimed compensation on the basis of his salary which was Rs. 330, per month. In spite of several adjournments the appellant failed to file any written‑statement and, therefore; it was ordered that application to proceed ex parte. However, before an ex parte proof was tendered the appellant made an application on 23rd June, 1976 for setting aside the ex parte order. Again the appellant remained absent on two hearings. However, on 3rd August, 1976 an application was made on behalf of the appellant that an affidavit would be filed and for that purpose the case was adjourned to 13th September, 1976. On the adjourn ed hearing the appellant was again absent and therefore, on 15th September, 1976 a final order on the main application for compensation was passed and Rs. 8,000, were awarded by the Commissioner. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

3. The main grievance of the appellant was that the final order was not justified as the application for setting aside the ex parte order was still pending and was not disposed of and at the most the application for setting aside the ex parse order could be dismissed for non‑appearance. I entirely agree with this contention. Before passing the final order it was necessary to have disposed of the application for setting aside the ex pate order. No order on that application was passed.

4. The impugned order was passed on 15th August, 1976 whereas this appeal was filed on 14th February, 1977 and application for condonation of delay was made. Indeed, it was stated that it was not known that any final order was passed and beside the order being without jurisdiction was nullity in law and question of limitation did not arise. This question depends upon the determination of the question whether the order which was passed by the learned Commissioner was without jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction relates to the application of the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965. It is an admitted position that the respon dent was a secured person under the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance and, therefore, he was entitled to claim compensation under that Ordinance. I have already held in the case of M/s. Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi v. Rab Nawaz and another (1975 P L C 497) that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is barred by virtue of section 81 of West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance 1965. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Commissioner is nullity, in law and cannot be given effect to.

5. In result I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner and dismiss the application made by the respon dent under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He is advised to approach the Social Security Institution for the award of compensation in accordance with law.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
best advocate from Sara e Naurang lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.