Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. WCK‑1 and 2 of 1986, heard on 3rd February, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 30 (1)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial anti Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 10‑B‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Appeal against orders of Commissioner‑‑‑ Group insurance‑‑Order of Commissioner regarding group insurance amount under S.O. 10‑B, held, was not appealable‑ ‑Remedy, could, however be availed of in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

1982 P L C 603 and 1982 P L C 641 rel.

Ahsanul Haq Siddiqi for Appellants.

Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1986.

These two matters are fixed for Katcha‑peshi and I have fully heard Mr. Ahsanul Haq Siddiqi, the learned Advocate for the appellants.

2. The facts are that Manzoor Husain Jafari was awarded Rs.21,000 as Group Insurance by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad, and the Second case was of the another Driver by name Kismat Ali Shah who was likewise awarded the same amount of Group Insurance under Standing Order 10‑B. These are two appeals preferred before this Tribunal.

3. In these two appeals, I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant‑Corporation. There are' authorities that under Standing Order 10‑B, no appeal lies before the Tribunal The first authority is reported in 1982 P L C 603. The quotation is as follows:‑

"Another ground on which the present appeal is liable to be dismissed is that the view repeatedly taken by this Tribunal has been that no appeal lies against an Order of the Commissioner passed under Standing Order 10‑B. The latest decision of this Tribunal on this point is in the case of General Tyre and Rubber Co., Ltd. v. Hari, decided on 18th August, 1980."

4. There is another authority by the Sind High Court reported in 1982 P L C 641. The following observation was made by the learned Judge of the High Court:-‑

"It may finally be pointed out that this Tribunal has repeatedly held that no appeal lies against a decision given by the Commissioner under Standing Order 10‑B, since the matters in respect of which appeal can be preferred are limited to those specified in subsection (1) of section 30 of the "Workmen's Compensation Act". The earliest decision to this effect was given by this Tribunal in the case of Re: Daily Mashriq v. Mst. Roshan Khatoon decided on 23rd July, 1975. The said decision was followed in the case on Tanveer Textile Mills v. Mst. Ameena and Rice Export Corporation v. Raes Bibi, decided on 7th March, 1977."

5. In view of these judgments, I feel that the appeals do not lie before the Tribunal against an order under Standing Order 10‑B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. However, there is a remedy in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

6. The result is that both these appeals are dismissed in limine.

A.E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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