Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No.S-137 of 1983, decided on 20th November, 1984.

---Ss.37 & 42--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.0.10-B--Group insurance--Death of workman not as a result of employment injury but a natural death after prolonged illness--Contention that because of specific provisions of Ss.37 & 42 of West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, S.0.10-B would be inapplicable, repelled- Held: (1) S.37 of Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is confined only to meagre payment upto -maximum of Rs.500 in favour of persons who provided funeral to deceased workman and as such has no similarity to S.0.10-B of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 where group insurance of Rs.15,000 is to be paid to heirs and (2) S.42 of West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 does not apply as it provides for survivor's pension in case secured workman dies as a result of employment injury.

(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--

---S.O.10-B--Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), S.10--Group insurance--Forum for--Such forum for settlement of claim of legal heirs of deceased workman would be Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and not the Labour Court--Contention that claim under S.10-B being a case of general grievance it should be taken up before Labour Court by way of grievance petition under S.25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, repelled--[P L D 1980 Quetta 87 dissented from].

P L D 1980 Quetta 87 dissented from.

1980 P L C 239 rel.

Ch. Rashid for Petitioner.

S.A. Channa for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 20th November, 1984.

This petition is directed against the orders of :Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, dated 30-5-1983 in which group insurance amount of Rs.15,000 was awarded to respondent No.2, Mst. Shamim Akhtar; as a widow of Abdul Ahad who had died in natural death while he was permanently employed by the petitioner from 1971 till his death on 16-1-1982. There are only two points urged by Mr. Ch. Rashid, one is that the provision of section 10-B of Standing Order Ordinance, 1968, is inapplicable because of specific provisions made under sections 37 and 42 of Social Security Ordinance, 1965. Section 10-B of S.O. of W.P. S.O. Ordinance, 1968 provides for insurance against natural death and disability and injury arising out of contingencies not covered by W.C. Act, 1923 or the Provincial E.S. Security Ordinance, 1965. And subsection (4) of the said section makes a provision that where employer has failed to have a permanent workman ensured then the employee shall pay to the heirs of such workman such sum of money as would have been payable by the Insurance company if the workman had been insured. Evidently the case of the respondent was to be covered by section 10-B of W.P.S.O. Ordinance, 1968, if it was not covered by the provisions of Social Security Ordinance or the Workmen's Compensation Act. No argument has been advanced that the substantive provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act would be applicable and hence my inquiry is limited to the question whether sections 37 and 42 of the Sind Social Security Ordinance, 1965, contain a provision as is provided under section 10-B. Section 37 of Social Security Ordinance provides that on date of a secured person entitled to receive injury benefit, sickness benefit or medical care at the time of his death the widow, etc., who provided for the funeral, shall be entitled to a death grant equal to the daily rate of sickness benefits multiplied by 30 but not more than 500 rupees. This section is confined only to those persons who have provided funeral to the deceased, and it makes a provision of a meagre payment of maximum amount of Rupees 500 in favour of these persons and therefore this section can have no similarity or likewise to the provisions of section 10-B of S.O.,, Ordinance, 1968 where a group insurance amount of Rs.15,000 is to be paid to the heirs. Similarly section 42 of Social Security Ordinance, 1965, does not apply to the case of the respondent No.2 as the same provides for a survivor's pension in case the secured person dies as a result of an employment injury.

It is an admitted position that the deceased Abdul Ahad died a natural death, of course after a prolonged illness, but he did not die as a result of an employment injury and therefore section 42 of Social Security Ordinance does not displace the provisions of S.O. 10-B of W.P. S.O. Ordinance, 1968.

2. Ch. Rashid then contended that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had no jurisdiction in the matter as subsection (5) of section 10-B of S.O. Ordinance, 1968, merely provides the machinery as provided in the Workmen's Compensation Act for recovery of money under section 10-B but it does not make a specific provision that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner alone shall decide the same. He therefore submitted that this being a case of a general grievance of a worker should have been taken to the Labour Court. He relied upon PLD 1980 Quetta 87 where a Division Bench of that Court held that the forum for grant of group insurance amount under section 10-B of W.P.S.O. Ordinance, 1968, was a Labour Court. I am sorry that II have to disagree with respect with that view because in a considered judgment I have already held in 1980 P L C- 239 (243) that neither civil Court nor Labour Court have jurisdiction in case of claim of legal heirs of worker under S.O. Ordinance 10-B and that the jurisdiction of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was more beneficial in the circumstances of the case for settlement of claim under section 10-B of W.P. S.O. Ordinance, 1968. Therefore, following my own view I hold' that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had the jurisdiction to decide the case as he did and this petition is therefore dismissed. The amount of Rs.15,000 deposited by the petitioner in this case should be paid to the respondent No.2.

A.E./H-6/K

Petition dismissed.