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.
Case No.SS(C & B) IX (63)/87/4106, decided on 15th February, 1987.
Ss.10 & 57 Provincial Employees" Social Security (Employer"s Returns and Records) Regulations, 1967, Regn.2(f) Employment injury Benefits for Secured worker declared medically unfit due to blindness Medical Board declaring that blindness occurred due to viral infection and not due to any employment injury, whereby worker was not entitled to any compensation On complaint before Commissioner Eye Specialist deposing that worker had developed "Corneal Scars" which could be due to complication of viral conjunctivitis corneal ulcer" or any injury to cornea Commissioner, in circumstances, coming to conclusion that it was a doubtful case Benefit of doubt, held, always goes in favour of aggrieved person and Institution must pay injury benefits to secured person.
H.R. Haider for the Complainant.
Afzal Sheikh, Deputy Director (F & A) Local Office, Faisalabad for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 15th February, 1987.
The complaint filed on 19 5 1983 by the complainant is against the orders dated 24 3 1983 of the respondent vide which the complainant Mill was informed that Mr. Dilawar Hussain s/o Inayat Ali SS No.055831 a secured worker of the complainant unit appeared before the Medical Board held under the chairmanship of Dr. Muhammad Ilyas, Eye Specialist on 28 11 1981 and was declared medically unfit to perform any type of duty. He was found practically blind from both eyes due to viral infection which was prevailing as epidemic in those days. The complainant was also informed that since it was not "employment injury" case, therefore, the secured person respondent No.2 was not entitled for any compensation/gratuity or pension under social security law.
2. I have gone through the contents of the impugned order dated 24 3 1983, complaint, reports dated 2 2 1982 and 21 4 1982 of the Medical Board, and the written reports dated 2 4 1984 and 10 8 1985 of the respondent. I have also studied the report dated 13 4 1986 of the SMO Faisalabad. I have also gone through the law on the subject and perused the record file. I have heard the parties duly represented.
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Mr. Dilawar Hussain a secured worker of the complainant Mill got some complications in his eyes due to viral infection which was prevailing as epidemic during 1981 all over the country. He remained under treatment of Medical Officer Incharge ITC, Crescent Jute Products Jaranwala and then he was referred to Social Security Hospital Faisalabad for specialized treatment, where he remained under the treatment of Eye Specialist. But infection of his eyes could not be cured, therefore, he was referred to Medical Board to ascertain his fitness for duty. The Board comprising of Dr. Muhammad Naseeb, SMO, Dr. Hafiz M. Ilyas Eye Specialist and Dr. Syed Shujat Ali Shah ASMO Faisalabad examined him and declared unfit for duty on 2 2 1982 vide report placed on file. The secured worker was again re examined by the Eye Specialist and SMO referred to above on 21 4 1982 to find out whether his blindness was due to employment injury or due to some other diseases. It was declared that the secured worker, the respondent No.2 was rendered practically blind not due to employment injury but due to viral infection, therefore, he was not entitled for any compensation under the law. The complainant company requested the respondent No.l for the payment of compensation but the request was rejected under impugned letter dated 24 3 1983 referred to above.
4. The complainant Mill through present complaint contended that:
(i) the respondent No. 2 got an employment injury during the course of employment. He was treated by the Social Security Institution at Jaranwala and then at Faisalabad.
(ii) The secured person was sent for medical check up to the Medical Board who declared him unfit permanently to perform any duty.
(iii) The respondent No.2 lost his vision due to an employment injury and his disease is an employment injury, therefore, he is entitled for compensation under the law.
5. The respondent No.l on the other hand contended that
(i) the complaint is not tenable as it has been filed by the management and not by the secured person if he was an aggrieved person. The complainant has no cause of action.
(ii) The medical board comprising of three MOs including Eye Specialist declared that Mr. Dilawar Hussain the respondent No.2 lost his vision due to "viral infection" and not due to "employment injury".
(iii) The complainant, employer of respondent No.2 did not inform the respondent No.1, the DLO, Faisalabad about accident for which he was bound to inform the Institution under Section 2. subsection (f) of Provincial Employees Social Security (Employer"s Returns and Record) Regulation, 1967. "
(iv) The respondent No.2 did not sustain any injury as provided under the definition of "employment injury" as provided under Section 2, subsection (10) of the Social Security Ordinance 1965. Neither it comes under the professional disease as laid down under Provincial Employees Social Security Occupational Diseases Regulations 1967.
(v) The Medical Board declared the respondent No.2 unfit permanently not because of "employment injury" but due to "viral infection".
6. The respondent, therefore, contended that complaint made by M/s. Crescent Jute Products Jaranwala be dismissed.
7. Dr. Hafiz M. Ilyas Eye Specialist who was also the member of the Board was summoned. He stated before us that in 1981 Mr. Dilawar Hussain came to him. He had developed "Corneal Scars" in his both eyes. This "Corneal Scars" can be due to complication of "Viral Conjunctivitis Corneal Ulcer" or any injury to the cornea.
8. After going through the facts of the case and hearing the parties I come to the conclusion that it is doubtful case and benefit of doubts always goes in favour of the aggrieved person, therefore, Institution must pay injury benefit to the secured persons.
9. The complaint is accepted and disposed of with the observation given above.
A.E. /324/Lb.P Complaint accepted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer