Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Appeals Nos. WCK‑6 to 13 of 1981, heard on 12th July, 1981.
‑‑‑‑ S.1(4)‑P. W. D. Code‑Cannot be considered as statutory rules for purposes of the Ordinance.
‑‑ S. Os. 10‑B & 12‑‑Decision of Commissioner regarding compensation or gratuity‑Not appealable before Labour Appellate Tribunal.
Syed Ahmad Farooqui for Appellants.
Date of hearing : 12th July, 1981.
These are eight appeals, filed by the Government of Sind through the Executive Engineers of the concerned Divisions against separate but sub stantially similar orders passed on 9th May, 1981 by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad, awarding compensation under Standing Order 10‑B to the heirs of the deceased employees and also gratuity to the dependents of the deceased workmen under clause (8) of Standing Order 12 read with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
The impugned orders were passed' on separate applications filed by the heirs/dependents of the eight deceased employees and they are the respondents in these eight appeals. In their respective applications they claimed, firstly, compensation under Standing Order 10‑B by reason of the fact that the employees concerned, whose heirs they are, had died during the course of the employment with the appellants but the appellants bad not insured them in the manner provided under Standing Order 10‑B and that further they had not been paid the compensation amount under the said Order. It was also claimed in the said applications that they had not received the gratuity amount admissible to the deceased workmen under Standing Order 12.
3. The main ground on which the above claims were resisted was that the deceased employees were work‑charged personnel and such work‑charged employees in the Government establishments concerned are not governed by the provisions of Standing Orders. This contention was sought to be grounded on the first proviso to subsection (4) of section I of the Sind (Industrial and Commercial Employment) Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The said proviso excludes the application of the Standing Orders as well as the said Ordinance to establishments which are carried on by or under the authority of the Government and where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein. It was contended by Mr. Farooqui, the learned counsel for the appellants, that the rules in the P. W. D. Code are statutory rules and the said rules are applicable to temporary employees with the establishments concerned to the exclusion of Standing Orders. This very issue has been considered by this Tribunal at some length in the case of Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department, Government of Sind and others v. Feeder Division Kotri Barrage Employee's Union, decided on 28th October, 1980 wherein it has been held that the P. W. D. Code cannot be considered to be statutory rules for the purposes of the Standing Orders; as the said Code has not been framed under any law.
4. The sole issue which was raised in these appeals by Mr. Farooqui was the exclusion of the provisions of the Standing Orders to the employees of the establishments concerned namely the Feeder Division and the Mechanical Division of the Irrigation Department. As already pointed out, this issue had already been considered by this Tribunal in the above case of the Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department and others v. Feeder Division, Kotri Barrage Employees' Union and it is bound by its earlier decision. Mr. Farooqui sought to argue that a Cons titutional Petition has been preferred against the above decision which has been admitted by the High Court and, therefore these appeals should at least be admitted to regular hearing. I regret that I find no force in this contention. The mere fact that a Constitutional Petition against the aforesaid decision has been admitted by the High Court does not entitle me to take a different view from what I had taken in the above decision or even to admit an appeal in disregard of the said decision.
5. There is also an additional ground on which these appeals would appear to be inadmissible. It has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Re : Daily Mashriq v. Mst. Roshan Khatoon, decided on 23rd July, 1975 that no appeal lies to this Tribunal against the decision given by the Com. missioner under Standing Order 10‑B. This Tribunal has repeatedly been following respectively the said decision. The latest decision on the point is in the case of Housing Enterprise v. Mst. Rabia Begum, decided on 5th[ March, 1981. The above view is based on the principle that an appeal is a substantive right and has to be specifically provided by. law but there is no provision under standing Order 10‑B for an appeal to this Tribunal. Similarly in the case of award of gratuity under Standing Order 12 there is no specific provision for appeal to this Tribunal.
6. For the above reasons I see no force in these eight appeals and, accordingly, dismiss the same in limine.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer