Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. WCK-1 of 1985, heard on 27th July, 1985.

---S. 8(4)--West Pakistan Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1961, r. 11- --Heirs of deceased workman--Entitlement to Group Insurance money Only heirs of deceased being three brothers and one sister--These heirs, held, were entitled to Group insurance money of deceased workman.

1980 P L C 496 ref.

---S. 8(4)--Amount of gratuity--Entitlement of--Nominee appointed by deceased during lifetime, held, was entitled to amount of gratuity.

---S. 8(4)--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.0.10-13, (4)--Heirs and dependants of deceased workmen are to be provided relief in accordance with S.O. 10-B--In absence of dependants heirs are to be given amount of Group Insurance in terms of S.O. 10-B(4) in accordance with provisions of Muhammadan Law.

S.A. Channa for Appellants.

Masood Ahmad Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th July, 1985.

This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Central Division, Karachi, dated 26-11-1984.

2. Abdul Wahab, the deceased was in the employment of Messrs Sind Engineering Limited, Karachi, who died a natural death on 10-3-1984. The management of Messrs Sind Engineering Ltd. under their No. PS/WC127/1120, dated 14th June, 1984, remitted an amount of Rs. 50.000 on account of Group Insurance through Cheque No. 405604, and another sum of Rs. 2,029.47 on account of Gratuity through Cheque No. 491033, dated 21-5-1984 for the disbursement. Fahim Akhtar was heir and nominee of the deceased and he moved an application for the release of the two sums. The evidence was taken by the learned Commissioner and he came to the conclusion that the parents of the deceased were not alive and he died as a bachelor. The deceased survived by (1) Fahim Akhtar. (2) Waseem Akhtar. and (3) Naeem Akhtar, his brothers; and Mst. Shamim Akhtar sister. All the three brothers are adults and employed and sister, Mst. Shamim Akhtar, being marred, lived with her husband separately and independently. The learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that since there was no dependant according to the workmen's Compensation Act, no amount could be disbursed to the heirs or anyone else. Accordingly he ordered that the Group Insurance and Gratuity amounts shall remain in deposit for a period of two years under section 8(4) of the said Act, and if it remains unclaimed and undisbursed, it shall thereafter be transferred to the Workmen's Compensation Benefit Fund under Rule 11 of the West Pakistan Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1961.

3. The matter was argued by the learned counsel, Mr. S.A. Channa. The learned counsel of the management of Sind Engineering Limited, Mr. Masood Ahmad Khan was also heard. While in his arguments, Mr. S.A. Channa referred this Tribunal to 1980 P L C 496.

4. The Group Insurance amount was deposited by the management i.e. the Sind Engineering Limited in pursuance of clause (4) of Standing Order 10-B. Accordingly the claims in respect of this amount have to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the said clause and clause (5) which read as follows:

"Clause (4)--Where the employer fails to have a permanent workman employed by him insured in the manner laid down in clauses (1), (2) and (3) and such workman suffers death or injury arising out of contingencies mentioned in clause .(1) the employer shall pay, in the case of death, to the heirs of such workman; or in the case of injury, to the workman, such sum of money as would have been payable by the insurance company had such workman bean insured.

Clause (5)--All claims of a workman or his heirs for recovery of money under clause (4) shall be settled in the same manner as provided for the determination and recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923)."

5 The authority before me makes it clear that the clause (4) of the Standing Order 10-B would be operative. I may quote the paragraph 4 of the said Judgment as under:

"It will be seen that claims for recovery of monies under clause (4) can only be made by the workman himself, where he is alive, or by his heirs, if he be dead. As such, despite the fact that the determination of the claim, either by the workman or by his heirs, has to be made in the manner provided for the determination and recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the persons entitled to the compensation or the Group Insurance Money, even in the case of death of the workman concerned, would not necessarily be the same as under that Act. It may be pointed out that under the said Act, only the dependants, as defined in that Act, are entitled to compensation, but under Standing Order 10-B, the heirs of a deceased workman are entitled to the Group Insurance as provided in clause (4) and reiterated in clause (5)."

6. In this case, there are three brothers and one sister, the heirs of the deceased. The heirs shall get the amount of Rs. 50,000 as deposited by the management of Sind Engineering Limited, Karachi.

7. As regards the amount of Gratuity, this amount must be given to the nominee appointed by the deceased during his lifetime. The nominee papers was brought on record by the learned counsel for Sind Engineering Limited and it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.A. Channa that the nominee is entitled to the amount of the Gratuity notwithstanding to clause (5) of the Standing Order 10-B.

8. I am referred to the impugned judgment of the learned Commissioners, vide paragraph 6. The relevant paragraph is quoted as below: -

"The very fact that the matter of Group Insurance has been incorporated in the Standing Orders Ordinance and its determination, recovery and disbursement subjected to the relevant provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, makes it abundantly clear, and beyond all about, that, in doing so, the aim, object and intent of the Legislature was to provide for and ensure immediate financial relief to the distressed dependants and compensate them for the sudden loss of earnings caused by the death of the supporting wage-earner, the deceased workman. There was, therefore, no room for the Group Insurance Money to be treated as the estate of the deceased workman and subjected to the Law of inheritance for distribution among the Legal Heirs of the deceased workman."

9. It may be observed that the Legislature meant to provide relief) in accordance with Standing Order 10-B to the heirs and if there be a dependent, to the dependent. Since there is no dependent as envisaged in the Workmen's Compensation Act, the heirs are got to be given the amount of Group Insurance as envisaged in clause (4) of Standing Order 10-B in accordance with the provisions of Muslim Law. The financial relief is got to be given according law which includes the heirs of the deceased. The Legislature certainly meant the relief to the heirs and dependents but where the deceased has nominated a particular person during his life time to get the gratuity, he cannot be over looked. The nominee must be taken into consideration and the amount of gratuity be disbursed to the nominee of the deceased. Accordingly, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The amount deposited as Group Insurance be forthwith given to the heirs of the deceased and the amount of gratuity to the nominee.

A.A

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.