Javed Iqbal, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2005 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner under Section 64 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case "are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 57 of the Ordinance praying for reimbursement of Rs. 3,90,351/- incurred on the treatment of nine workers of the company who after performing their duties were waiting for a Bus outside the factory premises, when a Taxi ran over them; .causing injuries to them and one of them died at the spot. On 17.4.1998 the injured persons were taking to Bentwa Anees Hospital and Agha Khaki Hospital Karachi for treatment. The respondent paid the said amount of Rs. 3,90,351/- as medical expenses and requested the Appellant No 1 i.e. Balochistan Employees Social Security Institution through its Commissioner Labour Complex (herein after referred to as the institution) for reimbursement of the amount. The institution was refused to make payment of the same. The respondent filed an appeal under the Ordinance before the Commissioner Balochistan Employees Social Security Institution who after hearing the parties rejected the complaint on the ground that the incident had taken place outside the factory premises vide order dated 5.7.2000. Being aggrieved from the same, the respondent filed a complaint before the Presiding Officer 3rd Labour Court Balochistan Social Security Court, at Hub which was 'accepted vide order dated 12.9.2001.
Being aggrieved from the same, the appellants filed an appeal under Section 64 of the Ordinance before this Court which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19/2001, .the same was partly accepted by this Court and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner. Balochistan Employees Social Security Institution with the directions that opportunity be given to both, the parties to lead evidence who rejected the claim of the respondent vide order dated 31.4.2004.
Thereafter the respondents filed an appeal before the 3rd Labour Court Balochistan Social Security Court at Hub and the same was accepted vide impugned judgment dated 3.2.2005." Being aggrieved an . appeal was preferred which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.
3. Heard Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned ASC on behalf of petitioners who mainly argued, that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective and the conclusion as arrived at by the High Court is not in consonance with the evidence which has come on record. It is next contended that Gatron Industries Limited (respondent) is not an aggrieved party and therefore, the amount in question could, not have been claimed by it. It is urged emphatically that the alleged occurrence had taken place outside of the factory premises and therefore, no benefit whatsoever could have been claimed which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned High Court resulting in serious miscarriage of justice.
4. We have carefully examined the above noted contentions in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the judgment passed by the Labour Court on 3.2.2005 as well as the judgment impugned. We are not persuaded, to agree with the prime contention of Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner that since the alleged accident had taken place outside of the factory premises, therefore, the claim of the respondent would not be permissible for the simple reason that the injured workers were on their way when the incident occurred which resulted in killing of one worker while the other sustained injuries. Had the workers reached their houses after completion of their work, the position would have been different.
In the above portraited scenario the concept of notional extension has rightly been pressed into service by the learned Labour Court and relevant portion of the judgment dated 3.2.2005 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "So 'far as the objection with regard to accident took place out, side the factory is concerned, in my opinion the accident in question fell within the definition of accidents provided under this ordinance because the theory of Notional extension was very much available as the workers certainly were in the course of their employment by waiting for conveyance at a point though outside the Factory, definitely the workers at the relevant time were not on independent and unconnected private activity, therefore, were entitled to get their compensation received under the Workermen's Compensation Act."
5. The determination of the learned Labour Court has been upheld by the High Court qua the concept of notional extension in the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is as follows:-- "It may be mentioned here that soon after their duties the employees of the factory were waiting for a bus outside the factory premises and in the meanwhile, a taxi over ran the employees wherein one person died on the spot and nine received injuries. It may be pointed out that said question has been finally dealt with by the learned Appellate Court holding therein that at the relevant time the workers were not independent and not connected with private activities and after the working hours, they were waiting for a bus. In this regard, the theory of notional extension is very much attracted as pick and drop of the workers also falls within the service hours. Admittedly the injured persons were waiting for a bus after working hours to go their homes. Thus the theory of notional extension can be extended as soon, after the company hours the injured persons waiting for transport and when they met with the said unfortunate accident. Admittedly at the time when the incident took place they were though on a public road but not standing for another purpose and it was very much during course of employment waiting for conveyance after working hours."
6. It has further .been observed with grave concern that no medical facilities were available to meet any emergent situation and the dispensary established was found without doctor and lifesaving drugs which is shocking and the institution must take appropriate and remedial steps in this regard. It is an admitted feature of the case that the workers remained hospitalized and the amount in question was incurred on their treatment. The legal and factual aspects of the controversy have rightly been appreciated by the Courts below. No illegality or irregularity could be pointed out in the judgment impugned by the learned ASC on behalf of petitioner justifying interference by this Court. It is well settled by now that "ordinarily the Supreme Court would refuse to reappraise evidence because the Court does not undertake this task unless a substantial departure from Some rule or principle relating to the appreciation of evidence has occurred. When the Court of first instance and the Court of appeal' arrives at concurrent findings of fact after believing the evidence of a witness, The Supreme Court as the final Court does not disturb such findings have in most exceptional cases. In the absence of a statutory bar this practice could have been and was occasionally relaxed or deviated from in special cases which were found to have been of a very unusual nature and of public and general importance; but never, unless justice was found to have miscarried as a result of either there not being a proper trial at all or on account of admission or reception of evidence which was not legally admissible or for something so shocking, so outrageous, or so gross as to shock the very basis of justice. This will be the case where there is such a disregard of the forms of legal process, or such a violation of principles as amounts to a denial or perversion of justice. The disregard or violation should not be merely technical in character it should be both grievous as well as substantial." (Abdul Majid v. State 1971 SCM R 31, British India N. Co. v. Abdur Razzak 19 DLR (SC) 177, Shamshad Ali Shah v. Hassan Shah 16 DLR (SC)
330, PLD 1961 SC 609, Bashir Ahmad v. Yaqub Shah 1962 (1) PSCR 243; Muhammad Bachhal v. Crown PLD 1951 FC 140, Badri Rai v. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 953, Mathew v. T.C. State AIR 1956 SC 241, Riam Narain v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 322, Sarfaraz Ali Khan v. Crown PLD 1951 FC 41, Sarfaraz Ali u.
Crown 1951 FCR 78, Muhammad Sarfraz Khan v. Crown PLD 1953 FC 317, Khuda Bakhsh v. Crown PLD 1955 FC 378, Gul Amir Khan v. Crown PLD 1951 FC 1). The case in hand does not fall within the ambit of above mentioned criterion.
'In sequel to above mentioned discussion the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.