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.
Constitutional Petition No.S‑89 of 1984, decided on 12th February, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 2(vi)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Claim of group insurance, gratuity, provident fund and other wages by deceased d workmen's heirs accepted by Authority‑‑Person filing application on behalf of heirs proved to have no locus stand to bring proceedings‑‑Contradictory statements by such person on factum of his appointment as attorney, claiming at one stage to have been appointed by father and brother of deceased workman, while admitting in cross‑examination that father and brother of such workman were not alive‑‑Held, since it had been established that person pursuing application wages of deceased had no proper locus standi to file application before Authority, High Court, would have no option but to declare the order of Authority to have been passed without lawful Authority and of no legal effect‑ Allowing constitutional petition filed against order of Authority, the impugned order was quashed by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.
Khurshid Ahmad Shaikh for Petitioner.
Chaudhary Rashid Ahmad for Respondent No.2.
Date of hearing: 12th February, 1987.
This petition is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (East Division) Malir, Karachi, dated 14‑4‑1984.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Mir Ahmad Khan was an employee of the petitioners who died on 15‑5‑1981 and one Ali Mir Jan claiming to have been appointed as an attorney by the father and the brother of the deceased workman filed an application before the learned Commissioner claiming Rs.15,000 on account of his group insurance, gratuity, provident fund, etc. The defence taken by the petitioners was that the said workman had resigned from his service three days prior to his death. However, this evidence was not believed by the learned Commissioner who allowed the claim of the respondent No.2 in full.
Mr. Khurshid Ahmad Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner has now contended that the learned Commissioner has erroneously allowed the application of the respondent No.l as Ali Mir Jan who claimed to be the Attorney of the respondent's father and brother had in fact no power of attorney from them as had been admitted by him in his evidence given before the learned Commissioner. Certified copy of his statement has been filed wherein Ali Mir Jan has stated that the deceased workman had only left his mother namely Mst. Roshan Khana and had no other legal heirs, at the time of his death. He further stated that he had been appointed Attorney to plead the case before the learned Commissioner by the deceased's mother.
From the documentary evidence brought on record by the petitioner, it clearly appears that Ali Mir Jan who filed the application before the learned Commissioner had taken contradictory stands. In the application he clearly mentioned that he was appointed Attorney by the father and the brother of the deceased for the purpose of filing of the application before the learned Commissioner but at the time of his evidence he appears to have taken a complete sumersault by stating that he had been appointed Attorney by the mother of the deceased after admitting that the father and the brother of the deceased were not alive at the time of his death. Consequently, it cannot be said with certainty that applicant Ali Mir Jan had been appointed attorney by the legal heirs of the deceased for claiming group insurance from the employer. The learned Commissioner in view of such evidence should first have made certain that the application had been filed before him by a proper person but the same does not appear to have been done. Since it has not been established that applicant Ali Mir Jan had any proper locus standi to file application before the learned Commissioner, I have no other option but to agree with Mr. Khurshid Ahmad Shaikh that the order of the learned Commissioner, dated 14‑4‑1984 was passed, without lawful authority.
Under the circumstances, I allow this petition and quash the said order. There will however, be no order as to costs.
A.A./D‑2/K
Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer