Find a Lawyer

Cause of action accruing, and proceeding commenced, before repeal of Schedule by Repealing and Amending Ordinance (I of 1961)‑Compensation can be rightly awarded under Sch. 4 as amended in 1957‑Repealing and Amending Ordinance (I of 1961), S. 4.

‑Language to be so construed as to suppress mischief and advance remedy.

Maxwell : "Interpretation of Statutes" 10th Edn. p. 68

-- "Persons employed in the handling of transport of goods"‑Include clerks employed in godown.

S. Inayat Ali for Appellant.

S. M. Hafeez for Respondent.

Dates of hearing : 18th and 25th May 1962.

This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Com pensation Act 1923. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly put are these Chattan was employed as a labourer in handling bags of grain in the godown of the appellant Hasham. Chattan died on the 24th January 1960 as a result of an accident. Some bags of grain fell over his head and he succumbed to the injuries.

2. The widow of the deceased made a claim for Rs. 9,000 in the Court of the First Class Sub‑Judge, Hyderabad who is an ex‑officio Commissioner under the Act. The learned Com missioner by his order dated the 31st January 1962 allowed a sum of Rs. 7,500 to the heirs of the deceased.

3. The important issues that arose as a result of the pleas of the appellant were these

(1) Was the deceased Chattan an employee of the opponent . at the time of his death

(2) Whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

(3) Whether the deceased died in the course of his employ ment.

The learned Commissioner found all these issues in favour of the respondent.

4. Mr. Inayat Ali, the learned Advocate for the appellant raised two‑fold contentions before me, namely

(i) that Act XI of 1957 (the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act 1957) having been repealed by Ordinance I of 1961, the compensation of Rs. 7,500 awarded to the heirs of the deceased Chattan was illegal ;

(ii) that Chattan was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(n) read with schedule 2(xxvi) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923.

I propose to dispose of these contentions separately.

5. Schedule 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was amended by Act XI of 1957. It was substituted by another Schedule. Under the amended Schedule 4 if the monthly wages of the workman who was injured was between 300 to 400 the compensation allowed, in case of death, was Rs. 7,500. The learned Commissioner awarded the compensation under the amended Schedule to the Act. The whole of this schedule was however repealed by Ordinance I of 1961. Ordinance No. I of 1961 was published in the Gazette of Pakistan on January 24, 1961. Mr. Inayat Ali, the learned Advocate for the appellant contended that Schedule 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act having been repealed, Schedule 4 to the Act which existed before the amendment in 1957 was revived. It is true under Schedule 4 which existed before its amendment in 1957 the heirs of Chattan will be entitled to much less compensation. It would however appear that Chattan having died on 24th January 1960, the heirs of Chattan would be entitled to claim damages under the amended Schedule of 1957. In this connection section 4 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Ordinance I of 1961, which is a saving section may be usefully reproduced :‑

"4. Savings.‑The repeal by this Ordinance of any Central Act or Ordinance shall not affect :‑

(a) the operation of any Act or Ordinance so repealed or the validity, invalidity effect or consequences of anything already done or suffered thereunder ; or

(b) any right, title, privilege, obligation or liability, acquired, accrued or incurred thereunder or any release or discharge already granted of or from any debt, penalty, obligation liability, claim or demand, or any indemnity, already granted, or the proof of any past act or thing ; or

(c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence, committed against any Act or Ordinance so repealed ; or

(d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, title, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid ;

and any such investigation, legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if this Ordinance had not been‑made ;

nor shall the repeal of any Act or Ordinance by which the text of any lave was amended by the express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, affect the continuance of any such amendment unless a different intention was expressly stated in the Act or Ordinance by which the amendment was made ;

nor shall this Ordinance revive or restore anything not in force or existing at the time of its commencement, or affect any law in which any Act or Ordinance hereby repealed has been applied, incorporated or referred to or affect any principle or rule of law, or established jurisdiction, form, or cause of pleading, practice, or procedure, or existing usage, custom privilege restriction, exemption, office or appointment notwithstanding that they respectively may have been in any manner affirmed, recognised or derived by, in or from any Act or Ordinance hereby repealed".

It :would appear from the above provision of law that the cause of action having accrued and the proceeding having been commenced before the repeal the learned Commissioner., rightly awarded the compensation under Schedule 4 as amended in 1957.

6. Mr. Inayat Ali, the learned Advocate for the appellant, very strenuously contended that on the facts proved' Chattan was not a workman within the meaning of the Act. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Advocate it would be necessary to reproduce section 2(1)(n) and the relevant portion of Schedule 2 of the Act. They read as under

2(I)(n): Workmen' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is‑

employed on monthly wages not exceeding Rs. 500 in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule 2.

Schedule 2 (xxvi).‑The following persons are workmen within t the meaning of section 2(1)(n) and subject to the provision of that section, that is to say, any person who is‑(xxvi) employed in the handling or transport of goods in or within the precincts of ‑

(a) any warehouse or other place in which goods are stored and in which or. any one day of the preceding 12 .months 10 or more persons have been so employed, or

(b) any market in which on any one day of the preceding 12 months 100 or more persons have been so employed".

Mr. Inayat Ali contended that on the finding of the learned Commissioner it may be, conceded that Chattan was employed on monthly wages not exceeding Rs. 500. He however urged that he did not fulfill the requirement of Schedule 2 (xxvi) of the Act inasmuch as 10 or more persons were not employed in the godown of the appellant for handling or transport of goods. He urged that in order that Chattan may be held to be a workman it is of importance that it must be established that Chattan was employed in handling of goods in the godown in which at least 9 others were also employed on any one day of the preceding 12 months of the date of the accident, in handling of goods. The learned Advocate laid emphasis on the fact that the appellant did not employ 10 persons as labourers for handling of goods in his godown in which the accident took place. It is, according to him, the essence of the law that there must be 10 persons engaged in the handling of bags in the godown on any one day of the preceding 12 months of the accident. I am of the view that the definition of workman is not capable of this narrow interpretation which is being put by the learned Advocate for the appellant. In my opinion the clerks employed in the godown are as much persons employed "in the handling or transport of goods" as the labourers who actually transport the goods. The clerks who supervise the actual handling of, the goods run as much danger from the fall of the bags as the persons who carry the bags. It is a well recognised principle of interpretation of a statute that it should be so construed as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. "It is said to be the duty of the Judge to make such construction of a statute as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Even where the usual meaning of the language falls short of the whole object of the legislature, a more extended meaning may be attributed to the words, if they are fairly susceptible of it. "(Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, p. 68). That the words "persons employed in the handling or transport of goods" are wide enough to include the clerks who are employed in the godown is supported by Schedule 2 (x), (xiv), (xviii) and (xix) of the Act. They read as under :

"Schedule IL‑The following persons are workmen within the meaning of section 2(1)(n) and subject to the provisions of that section, that is to say, any person who is :‑

(x) employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity,: in the construction, working, repair or demolition of any aerial ropeway, canal pipe‑line, or sewer ;

(xiv) employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity, in connection with operations for winning natural petroleum or natural gas ;

(xviii) employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity, on any estate which is maintained for the purpose of growing cinchona, coffee, rubber or tea, and on which on any one day in the preceding 12 months 25 or more persons have been so employed ; or

(xix) employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity, in the generating, transforming or supplying of electrical energy or in the generating or supplying of gas."

It would appear from the above that wherever the legislature wanted to exclude persons working in clerical capacity it has done so. It appears to me that the items in which persons serving in clerical capacity are excluded or those in which the clerks hardly run any risk of an accident, for instance, clerks employed on a tea estate hardly run any risk of accident because of the labourers working on the tea estate. On the other hand, the clerks employed in a godown run every risk of being involved in an accident because of the fall of some bags over them. Some of them have to supervise the work of the labourers in counting the bags. I am clearly of the view that clerks who are employed in a godown are also persons who can be said to be employed in the handling or transport of goods. The total number of persons employed in the godown as it would appear from the statement of the Manager of the appellant would come to 19. According to Ismail, Manager of the appellant, 12 clerks, 4 labourers and 3 watchmen were employed in the godown. The interpretation that I have put will suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. The object underlying the Workmen's Compensation Act is to give benefit to workmen. If a clerk were to run as much risk as a labourer doing a particular, job there is no reason why the clerk should not get the benefit of the workmen's Compensation Act.

7. The statement of Naseeruddin on behalf of the heirs of the deceased would, at any rate, meet the objection of the learned Advocate for the appellant. Naseeruddin who is a labourer stated as under

"Chattan was injured in the godown of Hashim Daud Dewan while working and then died 3 days after that accident in the hospital. There are 10 to 12 people working in the opponent's concern for the last 4 years."

The statement of Naseeruddin as to the number of persons working in the godown was not challenged in cross‑examination. The context in which Naseeruddin mentioned the number of persons working in the opponent's godown would show that they were working as labourers. In this view of the matter even a narrow interpretation of the definition of workman in section 2 (n) of the Act read with the Schedule 2 (xxvi), would establish that Chattan was a workman.

8. No other point was raised by Mr. Inayat Ali. The appeal is dismissed but I would make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the present case.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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