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.
Appeal No. FD‑19 of 1981, decided on 18th May, 1982.
‑‑S. O. 10‑B‑Group insurance‑Claim for‑‑Jurisdiction of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 ‑Only in cases where S. O. 10‑B applicable‑S. O. 10‑B applicable where employer fails to get employee ensured under group insurance scheme‑Employee duly ensured Commissioner/Authority or Labour Court, held, had no jurisdiction in matter of claim pertaining to group insurance.
‑ S. O. 10‑B‑Group insurance amount of deceased workman -Payable to heirs of deceased according to personal law of deceased.
A. M. Khan for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 18th May, 1982.
Sadiq Masih brother of the appellant was sweeper in the respondent Corporation and died on 7th March, 1974. The appellant claimed to be the brother of the deceased, brought application for the group insurance amount which has been dismissed by the learned Commissioner on the ground that an adult brother is not mentioned as heir in the Pension Rules. The application is for the recovery for the group insurance amount and no question of pension was involved. First of all the Authority had to decide' whether it had jurisdiction in the matter. Order 10‑B applies only in those cases where the employer fails to get the employee concerned insured under the group insurance scheme. In cases where the employee had been duly insured, Order 10‑B is not applicable and Commissioner and the Labour Court have no jurisdiction. Since no such point was raised it could not be decided in the lower Court. If Order 10‑B applies then the amount is to be distributed among the heirs according to the personal law of the deceased. The deceased being a Christian, his heirs according to the Christian law are to be traced but the learned Court has not given any finding on this point and dismissed the application as mentioned above for the reason that adult brother was not covered by the heirs according to the Pension Rules. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable. The appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order case is sent back to re‑decide in the light of the observations made above, after affording opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the legal and factual point involved in the case. The parties are directed to appear before the Authority on 6th June, 1982.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer