Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑9 of 1980/Pb., decided on 30th May, 1982.

(a) Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII, of 1923) --

---S. 30‑Appeal ‑Limitation‑Condonation of delay‑Time spent in a wrong forum can be computed‑Appeal filed erroneously before Labour Court wherefrom returned for presentation to proper forum‑No counter‑affidavit against application for condo nation of delay supported by affidavit‑Delay, in circumstances, . condoned.

(b) Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)

‑‑‑ S. 2(1) (d)‑‑Dependant of deceased workman‑‑Definition not exhaustive‑‑includes every person actually supported by deceased‑ Un-controverted statement of major son that he was supported by deceased‑He/d, Should have been accepted.

Ch. Anwar Ali for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent No. 1. S. M. Mohsin for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 5th May, 1982.

This appeal arises from the order dated 23rd January, 1980, passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rawal pindi, whereby the petition of the appellant for the recovery of Rs. 6,955 as compensation for the loss of the life of his father namely, Mehdi Hussain Shah, Peon, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines, was dismissed.

2. The learned Commissioner held that the appellant had failed to prove that he was the dependant of the deceased. A minor son is a de pendant but major is not. However, if the major son proves that he was living on the income of the deceased, he can be adjudged as dependant as the definition of dependant is not exhaustive.

3. The appeal is time‑barred and an application for condonation of delay bas been filed in which the ground given is that the appellant brought the appeal in the beginning in a wrong forum, i.e. Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, from where the appeal was returned on 12th July, 1980, for presentation to the proper forum. In the application it is not mentioned why the appeal was presented to this tribunal with a delay of about 26 days. The appeal was presented here on 7th August, 1980. The appellant has said that the circumstances due to which he presented the appeal late were beyond his control, although he has not disclosed those circumstances. There is nobody to seriously contest the appeal. Respondent No. 1 is the Commissioner for Workmen's Compen sation, who is not interested to contest the appeal and thus nobody has appeared on his behalf. Respondent No. 2 has deposited the amount and their case is not that they are not required to pay the compensation. As there is no counter‑affidavit against the application of the appellant for condonation of delay and the affidavit filed in support of it, I condone the delay and treat the appeal as within time. There is abundant law on .the point that time spent in a wrong Court can be computed.

4. The appellant appearing as his own witness stated before the; lower Court on oath that his father in his life used to support him, that he had no house or property. He also said that he was indebted to Rs. 16,000 since the time of the death of his father. As there were no contestants, nobody appeared to controvert the statement of the appellant, therefore, the learned Commissioner should have accepted the said state ment. No doubt, the appellant does not come under the definition of dependant, but the definition not being exhaustive, every person who actually being supported by the deceased, is a dependant. Since from the uncontr overted statement of the appellant it stands proved that he was being supported by his father, he is ,a dependant of the decett4ed. 1, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner, direct that the amount of Rs. 6,955 be paid to the appellant.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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