' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- Through this miscellaneous appeal order, dated 18-8-2004 passed by respondent No,1 viz. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, East Division, Karachi whereby he allowed the application filed by respondent No,2 under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, has been assailed.
2. Brief facts for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No,2 filed an application under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 stating therein that her husband namely, Sultan Ahmed was working in the appellant-Authority viz. Messrs Korangi Fisheries Harbour Authority as a Painter for the last about seven years on average monthly wages not exceeding Rs,3,000. On 17-9- 2002 when the said Sultan Ahmed was busy in his normal duties within the limits of Harbour he fell down from the height of about 13 feet on the cemented floor and sustained grave injury on his head and died at the spot. Respondent No,2 being her wife moved the said application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before respondent No,1 for grant of compensation of Rs,2,00,000.
' Objections were filed by the appellant wherein the application was opposed mainly on the ground that the deceased was a civil servant and that the Authority was not an industrial or commercial organization, as such Workman Compensation Act, 1923 does not apply to them. It was also pleaded that the deceased was working on daily wages and was not being paid monthly salary.
' After recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, respondent No,1 allowed the application vide order, dated 18-8-2004 which has been impugned in this appeal.
3. The contentions raised have been considered and the material placed on record has been perused.
4. The main issue to be resolved in this appeal is as to whether the deceased was a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 or a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It seems that respondent No,2 in her evidence stated that the deceased was working as painter. She produced list of employees of the appellant-Authority which are in two categories. Category "A" consists of civil servants whereas Category "B" consists of workers and the deceased being a painter fell in Category "B" of workers. She further stated that the appellant-Authority has no statutory rules of service, conduct and discipline so far as workers falling in Category "B" are concerned. The witness of the appellant-Authority in his cross-examination also admitted that the appellant-Authority has no statutory rules regarding payment of group insurance, gratuity and bonus. He also admitted that the appellant-Authority is engaged in the construction and repair of the Harbour and the job of painting remains there throughout the period. He also admitted that the deceased used to receive his wages on monthly basis. During his evidence he has neither denied nor admitted the fact regarding the abovesaid two categories of employees in the appellant- Authority.
5. The definition of "Workmen" as given in the Workmen's Compensation Act includes, any person who is employed on monthly wages not exceeding three thousand rupees in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II. Clause (viii) of Schedule II, inter alia, defines the "workman" to be any person who is employed in the construction, repair or demolition of any building or structure. The, definition of "building" as given in the Korangi Fisheries Harbour Authority Ordinance, 1982 includes a "platform". It is an admitted position that at the time of the incident deceased was dismantling a steal "platform" and during this process he fell down from the height and received head injury, as a consequence whereof he died. The Korangi Fisheries Harbour Authority Ordinance, 1982 also inter alia, provides that the Authority may undertake the construction work required for the Harbour area and carry out maintenance and repairs of Harbour structure, building etc. ' The deceased was basically employed as a "painter". Learned counsel for respondent No,2 in order to show that the painting also amounts to "repairs" within the meaning of Schedule II, Clause (viii)
(a) B of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, relied upon the case Shamas Din v. Muhammad Younis and others PLD 1953 Lah. 29 wherein it was held:--- "As regards the second objection, it appears to me that a fan is a part of the installations of a house, that consequently, it should be included in a "building and that the painting of the casing of a fan would amount to repairs within the meaning of the Schedule."
' In the circumstances, keeping in view the nature of the job of the deceased and the functions of the Authority, the deceased certainly falls within the definition of "workman". Consequently the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 applies to the .Deceased as well as the Authority.
5. So far as the points as to whether the deceased was being paid wages on daily basis or monthly basis and as to whether his monthly wages did or did not exceed Rs,3,000 are concerned, respondent No,2 in her affidavit-in-evidence has categorically stated that the deceased was paid wages on monthly basis and that his, monthly wages did not exceed Rs,3,000, whereas in his affidavit-in-evidence appellant's witness has stated that the deceased could take the wages either daily or at the end of the month as accumulated amount of daily wages. In his cross- examination also he admitted that the deceased used to take wages on monthly basis. However, he has not said a single word to contradict the fact the monthly wages of the deceased exceeded Rs,3,000.
' On this point learned counsel for respondent No,2 has relied upon the case reported as The East Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, Comilla v. Mohar Ali Siayal and others PLD 1971 Dacca 200 wherein while dealing with a case under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 following observations were made:-- "In our opinion, it does not matter at all for the application of this Act whether such wages are payable on an hourly basis, monthly basis or weekly basis. What was considered to be important and applicable in terms of this clause was the limit of the wages as Rs,500 per month and if the sum exceeds rupees five hundred on calculation for the month, file the person concerned_ could not enjoy the benefit of a workman as contemplated under this section."
' It was thus concluded:-- "In view of the above, it is apparent that a laborer who is paid his wages on a daily or weekly basis can also be termed as a workman within the meaning of clause (n) of section (i) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."
' In the circumstances, it can safely be held that the deceased was being paid monthly wages and that his monthly wages did not exceed Rs,3,000. This also makes entitling his legal heirs to receive compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
6. The upshot of above discussion is that the appeal being without merits, is dismissed in limine along with listed application.