This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1936, against an order passed on 17th October 1978 by the Commis--sioner under the said Act rejecting the claim for compensation preferred by the appellant in respect of an injury to his right eye.
2. The appellant's case is that on 16th August, 1974, while he was on duty at the respondent establishment, he sustained an accidental injury to his right eye and in consequence thereof there was a total impairment to the sight of the appellant from that eye. The appellant demanded compensation for the injury from the respondent but as this was refused to him, he applied to the Social Security Court for payment of injury grant, but the said Court rejected his claim on the ground that neither the appellant bad sustained an injury in the course of his employ--ment nor was he even on duty on 16th August 1974. The appellant there--after moved the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for award of injury compensation but the learned Commissioner rejected the claim, basing his orders mainly on an order passed by the Social Security Court.
3. It is an admitted position that the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, is applicable to the respondent establish--ment and the appellant is a `secured person' for the purposes of the said Ordinance. As such, compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not payable to him as provided in section 81 of the Ordi--nance. However, Mr. Maroof, the Representative of the appellant relied upon the decision of our High Court in the case of Mst. Lalbai v. Silver Paper Mills (PLD 1974 Kar. 140). That decision was considered by our High Court in Con-- stitutional Petition No. 15 of 1976, where it was held that section 81 was in 2 parts the first part bars the payment of compensation under the Work--men's Compensation Act and the Mines Maternity Benefit Act to a secured person under the West Pakistan Social Security Ordinance, 1969, while the second part provides that the aforesaid 2 Acts and the West Pakistan Maternity Benefit Ordinance; 1.958, in so far as they are in consistent with the provisions of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance shall cease to have effect. It has specifically been held in the said case that a secured person under the last named Ordinance is not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of an injury for which he has received or was receiving any benefit or com--pensation under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, as section 81 of the Ordinance makes in applicable the provisions of the aforesaid Act to a `secured person'.
4. Even on merits the appellant has no valid case. His case is that he met with an accident while he was on duty at the respondent establishment on 16th August 1974, and that in consequence of that injury there was damage to his right eye resulting in total loss of vision from that eye. However, the evidence shows that he was treated in the Social Security Hospital on 18th August, 1974, If the appellant had sustained an accident injury on 16th August, 1974, at 10-00 a. m., while on duty, there is no reason why he should not have been sent to the Social Security Hospital on the same day. The fact that he was not sent to the Hospital on that day clearly supports the contention of the respondent establishment that the appellant was not on duty on 16th August, 1974, but in fact it was his off day. Furthermore according to the evidence of the Social Security Hospital's Doctor, the damage to the right eye of the appellant was not in consequence of an accident, as claimed by the appellant, but was on account of old complaint of detachment of the retina of the eye. In this connection, reference may also be made to the decision of the Social Security Court which has held that the damage to the eye of the appellant and consequent loss of vision from that eye was on account of the detach--ment of the retina due to disease and- was not caused by an accident or employment injury. Mr. Maroof has been unable to satisfy me that the damage to the eye of the appellant was either caused on 16th August 1974 or was caused in the course of his employment.
5. For the reasons stated above, I would dismiss this appeal It is understood that the appellant has also filed in respect of the same incident a claim for injury compensation under Standing Order 10- B. That of course is a separate claim and will be decided by the appropriate Court in accordance with the provisions of the said Order.