DECISION This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is directed against an order of the Commissioner appointed under the said Act awarding compensation of the amount of Rs. 15,000 to the respondent on account of her husband meeting with a fatal accident on 22nd March, 1976 in the course of his employment with the appellant.
2. It is an admitted position that the deceased workman, Mamnoon Hussain, was an empl6yee of the appellant and that he died in consequence of a fatal accident sustained by him during the course of his employment. The only ground upon which Mr. Abdus Samad, the learned counsel for the appellant, has assailed the impugned order is that the deceased worker was a secured person' for the purposes of the said Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, and in accordance with the provisions of that Ordinance the respondent has received and is receiving survivor's pension and other benefits admissible under that Ordinance and consequently the claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation is barred by sections 73 and 81 of the said Ordinance. This contention was also raised before the learned commissioner but he rejected the same in view of the decision of the Sind High Court in the case of Mst. Lal Jan v. Silver Paper Tune Co. Ltd. (PLD 1974 Kar. 140).
3. It may be pointed out that section 73 of the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1955, disentitles a person, who is entitled to any of the benefits provided under the said Ordinance, to any similar benefit under any other Law. It is not disputed that the, respondent, who is the sole surviving dependent of the deceased workman, Mamnoon Hussain, is receiving survivor's pension on account of the death of her husband as a result of a fatal accident. It is true that under the said Ordinance, the surviving dependents are entitled only to 'survivors' pension, payable monthly, at a prescribed rate, while under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Compensation is of a lump sum, which is to be apportioned by the Commissioner among the dependents of the deceased workman. However, the nature of the benefit under the two statutes is substantially similar and the benefit in both cases becomes due by reason of the workman in consequence of an injury sustained by him in the course of his employment. Moreover, the object of the two benefits is' to provide compensation and support to the surviving dependents on account of the loss of the bread-earner.
4. Coming next to section 81 of the Sind Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, it provides -in unambiguous terms that a workman's compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act will not be payable in respect of employment to which the provisions of the said Ordinance are or have become applicable. It is not disputed that the provisions of the said Ordinance were applicable to the employment of deceased Mamnoon Hussain. As such, werkmen's compensation under the above Act is not admissible in respect of the said employment, including death arising in the course of that employment. No doubt, in Mst. Lai Jan's case, a learned Single Judge of the Surd High Court has expressed the view that while the Workmen's Compensation Act speaks of compensation and the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act is to compensate the worker or his dependants, in case the worker dies, on account of the loss of support that the dependants got from the worker while he was alive, the Sind Employees Social Security Ordinance speaks only of 'death grant' and gratuity', and hence the two concepts are entirely different. However, the learned Judge did not take into consideration the provisions of section 42 of the said Ordinance regarding payment of `Survivors' pension' to the dependants, as in the case before him Mst. Lal Jan, who had filed the appeal, was not deemed to be a dependant' for the purpose of the said Ordinance and hence not entitled to survivor's pension'. In the instant case, the respondent admittedly is receiving 'survivor's pension' under the said Ordinance. She thus cannot be entitled to two benefits, both substantially similar, on account of the same act or cause of action.
5. In Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 1976, which was decided on 26th August, 1976, the decision in Mst. Lal Jan's case was considered by the Sind High Court and it was observed that section 81 of the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 was a complete bar to the award of compensation under the' Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of the employment to which the provisions of the said Ordinance has been made applicable, by reasons of the first part of the said section. It was further held in that decision that a person who was receiving injury benefit under the Ordinance could not also legally claim or be entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. A similar view was taken by the Lahore High Court in Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. v.
Sakina Bibi (PLD 1978 Lah. 231), where it was pointed out that section 81 of the Provincial Employees'
Social Security Ordinance, 1965, has two parts, that the second part of this section is neither dependent upon nor controls the operation and effect of the first part, and accordingly workmen's compensation tinder the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is not payable in addition to the workman and his family under the Social Security Ordinance. This has also been the consistent view of this Tribunal, with which I am in respectful agreement.
6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
However, in these circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.