Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN‑9 of 1984, decided on 16th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 30‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 10‑B‑‑Group Insurance‑ Compensation of‑‑Deceased workman according insurance policy insured for Rs.15,000 on basis of Salary rate‑‑Order of Commissioner allowing compensation of Rs.18,000 in circumstances, modified to Rs.15,000 in appeal by Appellate Tribunal.

Malik Mumtaz Akhtar for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 7th October, 1985.

This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Multan, whereby Rs.18,000 have been granted as compulsory insurance amount under Standing Order 10‑B of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. It has been held by the learned Commissioner that the appellant only is liable to pay the compensation.

2. Originally Saghir Ahmad, deceased, was employed by the appellant firm which is a ghee producing industry. The appellant industry was nationalised under section 5 of the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Industry (Control & Development) Ordinance, 1973 and thus all the employees of the appellant industry became the employees of the Government. Respondent No.2 purchased the Solvent Extraction Plant, vide sale‑deed Exh.R‑2/1. According to the terms and conditions contained in Exh.R‑2/1, all the staff and employees of the Solvent Extraction Plant stood transferred to respondent No.2. Exh.R‑7 is the list of the employees alleged to be working in the Solvent Extraction Plant whose services were transferred to respondent No.2. The name of the deceased is at serial No.106. The date of transfer is mentioned as 24‑11‑1979. But Exh.R‑7 does not bear the signatures of any competent authority of the appellant, or of the proprietors or any authorised Manager or agent of respondent No.2, so has no evidentiary value. Exh.R‑1 is a letter sent to the deceased by the appellant informing him that his services had been transferred to respondent No.2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Exh.R‑4 is the photo copy of the postal receipt under which Exh.R‑1 was sent by registered post. The date is not decipherable on Exh.R‑4, so the document does not stand connected with letter Exh.R‑1. So it is not proved that Exh.R‑1 was actually despatched to the deceased by registered post. Exh.P.5 was relied upon by respondent No.l and the learned Commissioner for holding that only the appellant is liable. Although the services of the deceased are alleged to have been transferred to respondent No.2 in November, 1979, yet form B.2 P.5 for allowing compensation of death ‑to the deceased by the Social Security was issued by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that a note was given on Exh.P.5 to the effect that Saghir Ahmad had remained as employee of the appellant upto 22‑I1‑1979 and had become the employee of respondent No.2, with effect from 23‑11‑1979, so the appellant could not be held responsible to pay compensation. No doubt such a note is on Exh. P.5 but it is also mentioned that on 3‑5‑1981 the deceased was in the employment of the appellant. It has not been explained why B.2 was issued by the appellant after the death of the deceased when on 23‑11‑1979 he had been transferred to respondent No.2. Normally respondent No.2 should have issued B. 2. The note referred to above was given manifestly to be saved from payment of compensation. The learned counsel has not explained why it was mentioned in Exh.P.5 that on 3‑5‑1981 the deceased was the employee of the appellant. As no document bearing the signatures of any authorised officer of respondent No.2 has been produced, whereby the transfer of the deceased to respondent No.2 may have been accepted by the latter and as Exh.R‑7 does not, as mentioned above, bear the signatures of respondent No. 2, the factum of the transfer of the deceased to respondent No.2 does not stand proved. For this reason B. 2 Exh. P.5 was issued by the appellant and not be respondent No.2. This is in evidence that the deceased never reported to respondent No.2. It, appears that as he was suffering from fatal disease of T.B. he was not accepted by respondent No.2, therefore, Exh. P.5 was issued by the appellant. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that, vide Exh. P.6, provident fund of the deceased was transferred to respondent No.2, so only respondent No.2 was liable to pay the insurance amount. A perusal of Exh.P.6 shows that no signatures of the proprietor or any authorised agent of respondent No.2 appear on it in token of accepting and receiving the provident fund. Respondent No.2 could be liable only if it had accepted the deceased as its employee or had received or accepted his dues and assets from the appellant. If the appellant merely executed a document showing that the provident fund was transferred, would not bind respondent No.2 unless it is proved that the latter had accepted the same. No doubt in the sale deed Exh.R‑2/1 it is mentioned that the employees of the appellant were transferred but since in this document the names of the employees transferred are not given, the‑ appellant had to prove independently by means of some documents that the deceased was actually transferred and the transfer was accepted by respondent No.2. No other document has been referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant to show that respondent No‑2 is liable to pay insurance amount. So the learned Commissioner rightly made only appellant liable to pay the insurance amount.

3. Respondent No.2 did not appear in answer to the appeal and thus was proceeded ex parte. Respondent No.l contested the appeal to the extent that the appellant and respondent No.2 both or either of them was liable. The quantum of compensation on account of group insurance, however, is wrong. According to insurance policy, the amount is Rs.15,000 where the salary is Rs.1,000 or more. The deceased was getting not less than Rs.1,000 per month at the time of his death which occurred due to T . B .

4. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and the amount of compensation is reduced to Rs.15,000, which only the appellant is liable to pay. The amount of Rs.18,000 stands de posited, so the amount of Rs.3,000 may be refunded to the appellant.

A. E. Appeal partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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