Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. WCK‑15 of 1979, heard on 25th July, 1979.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑ S. 1 (4) & S. O. 10‑B‑Claim of group insurance by widow of deceased workman‑Employer resisting on contention that number of his employees being less than 20 provisions of Ordinance not applicable‑Commission allowing prayer of applicant widow to call for record and examine Accountant of employer to prove number of employees as 20 or more‑Record' indicating that number of employees was 20 in a month 9 months before death of deceased workman‑‑Claim of widow allowed‑Decision and procedure adopted by Commissioner, held, not objectionable.

Sikandar Ali Abdullah for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 25th July, 1979.

This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 on account of Group Insurance to the heirs of a deceased employee of the appellant, by name Yousaf Tayab, who died a natural death on 18th December, 1975, while in the employment of the appellant.

2. The claim for Group Insurance was filed by the widow of deceased Yousuf Tayab, on behalf of herself and the other heirs of the deceased who are their children. The claim was founded on the fact that in violation of the provisions of Standing Order 10‑B, the appellant had neglected to insure the deceased workman against natural death.

3. The claim of the widow, the respondent herein, was resisted by the appellant on the main grounds that the provisions of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, are not applicable to his establishment since the total number of employees in his establishment is less than twenty, and that further the learned Commissioner adopted a wrong and unwarranted procedure in allowing the application of the respondent, calling for the record, includ ing register of employees of the appellant's establishment, before even she had concluded her side, thereby permitting the respondent to prove her case through the witnesses of the appellant.

4. The learned Commissioner held on the basis of the record produced before him and the evidence led in the case, that the number of employees in the appellant's establishment was exactly twenty and thus the Standing Orders were applicable to it. He further repelled the contention of the appellant that in allowing the application of the respondent for examining the Accountant of the appellant, while the respondent's evidence had not concluded, was an illegality.

5. I have heard Mr. Sikandar Ali Abdullah, Advocate, who appeared for the appellant. He has urged before me only the above two grounds against the impugned order. I, however, find no force in either of these grounds. As regards the number of employees in the establishment of the appellant, it was proved through documentary evidence that in the month of March, the number of such employees was twenty. It was, admitted by Saleh Muhammad, the partner of appellant's establishment, that the Attendance Register shows that the number of employees in the establishment in the month of March, 1975, was twenty. As provided in section 1 (4) of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the provision of the said Ordinance apply to every industrial or commercial establishment wherein twenty or more workers are employed or were employed on any day during the preceding twelve months. As the deceased workman died in December, 1975, while the number of employees in the establishment in March, 1975, was twenty, the provisions of the Ordinance were applicable to the appellant's establishment at the relevant time. It is immaterial whether such employees were permanent or temporary, for the law specifies only the number of employees and does not specify whether they should be permanent, temporary, etc.

6. As regards the objection to the grant by the Commissioner of the respondents' application for summoning the Attendance and Pay registers of the appellant and examination of the appellant's Accountant, before the respondent had closed her side, i find no merit therein. Since the appellant had dishonestly denied his liability and taken the stand that the aforesaid Ordinance was not applicable to its establishment as the number of its employees was less than twenty, it was only proper for the Commissioner to allow the respondents' application, since the respondent who was a widow, could not otherwise establish her claim that the number of employees in the appellant's establishment was not less than twenty.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that I find no merit in this appeal and would accordingly dismiss the same in limine.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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