Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. WCK‑10 of 1984, decided on 6th June, 1985.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.O. 12(8)‑‑Payment of gratuity on death of workman‑‑Nominee of deceased who is also his dependent, held, was entitled to amount of gratuity.
Ch. Rasheed Ahmed and Latif Sagar for Appellants.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6th June, 1985.
Aggrieved from the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mr. Khawaja Samiul Hassan, dated 27‑11‑1984 the appellant, Ali Muhammad filed this appeal.
2. The facts are that the Dock Worker, Suleman son of Natha was employed with Karachi Dock Labour Board and he died a natural death on 16‑8‑1984. As required by Standing Order 12(8) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the Dock Labour Board remitted a sum of Rs.36,960.30 on account of gratuity of the deceased through a cheque No. 761000, dated 16‑10‑1984 under their letter No. KDLB/Acett/144, dated 8‑10‑1984 for the disbursement among the dependents. On 17‑10‑1984, one Ali Muhammad son of Ibrahim claimed to be the real nephew of the deceased for the release of the amount.
3. Ali Muhammad and his widow sister Mst. Khadija were examined and the documents were brought on record as Exhs. A.1 to A.3, W.1 and W.2.
4. I have heard the learned counsel of the appellants Mr. Choudhry Rasheed Ahmed and Latif Sagar. They made an application for additional evidence to be recorded in view of the fact that on record there appears a Nomination paper of the deceased Suleman and further they prayed that the evidence before the learned Commissioner, that Ali Muhammad being not dependent of the deceased was erroneous record. Therefore, I called Muhammad Khakhan Khan, Assistant Personnel Officer of Karachi Dock Labour Board who on solemn affirmation stated that the deceased Suleman had given Nomination paper in favour of Ali Muhammad, the present appellant. The photostat copy produced alongwith the memo of appeal was seen by Mr. Muhammad Khakhan Khan and stated that this is the same and the original Nomination paper which was signed by the deceased Suleman on 6‑5‑1978. He has further stated that Ali Muhammad was the adopted son of the deceased and the deceased looked after Ali Muhammad as adopted son. The evidence of Ali Muhammad is also recorded. He states that he and Mat. Khadija are the real brother and sister inter se and Mst. Khadija was a widowed lady and lived with him as his dependent. The deceased's wife had died during the lifetime of the deceased and thereafter he shifted from Moosa Lane and came to reside with Ali Muhammad and his sister. He looked after them and Ali Muhammad was adopted as the son of the deceased and was a dependent of the deceased.
5. From the evidence as recorded before me, it appears that Ali Muhammad is the nominee of the deceased to whom he has willed to pass the amount of the Gratuity and he is also a dependent according to the evidence recorded by me today. Mst. Khadija is the dependent of Ali Muhammad. In view of the Nomination paper produced by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Karachi Dock Labour Board, the amount of Gratuity should go in favour of Ali Muhammad who is also a dependent of the deceased.
6. In view of the above situation, I hereby set aside the order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Karachi and order that the amount of Gratuity i.e. Rs.36,960.30, deposited in his Court be immediately paid to the appellant, Ali Muhammad son of Ibrahim.
Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer