The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition seeking quashment of order dated 17.1.2006 passed by Respondent No. 2 (Commissioner Workmen's Compensation) burdening the petitioner with a amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as Group Insurance to be paid to Respondent No. 1 as compensation in lieu of death of his brother Muhammad Afzal who while in the service of the petitioner as workman died on 21.8.2004.
2. The facts in brief are that the Respondent No. 1 claiming himself to the only legal heir of Muhammad Afzal filed an application on 9.9.2004 to the Manager of the petitioner Mills stating that as the brother of the petitioner namely Muhammad Afzal was employee of the petitioner since 22.7.2004 who died on 21.8.2004, hence his due wages for sixteen days during the month of August, 2004 be paid to him. .0n 18.9.2004 the Respondent No. 1 also moved an application to the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation/Respondent No. 2 on a prescribed form-D claiming that as his brother Muhammad Afzal died on 21.8.2004 while in the employment of the petitioner, hence, the petitioner was entitled to recover Rs. 2,00,000/- from the petitioner as compensation in lieu of Group Insurance in terms of clause 10-B of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The said application was contested by the present petitioner vide written reply dated 26.10.2004 wherein, it was specifically alleged in the preliminary Objection No. 2 that as Muhammad Afzal at the time of his death was not the permanent workman, hence, he could neither be got insured by the petitioner nor the Respondent No. 1 could claim the amount of Group Insurance from the petitioner. The Respondent No. 2/Commissioner Workmen's Compensation after recording evidence and holding necessary proceedings allowed the said application of Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 17.1.2006 and directed the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as Group Insurance to Respondent No. 1 and deposit the said amount with Commissioner Workmen's Compensation within thirty days. The said order of Respondent No. 2 has now been assailed through the instant petition.
3. The Respondent No. 1 (Qaswa r Abbas) was issued pre-admission notice by this Court on 16.2.2005 and today the matter has been heard in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 1 in person, as he has opted not to engage any counsel.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the absence of any specific findings of learned Respondent No. 2/Commissioner Workmen's Compensation about the nature of employment of Muhammad Afzal deceased viz whether he at the time of his death was a permanent workman employed by the petitioner, the learned Respondent No. 2 had no authority to pass the impugned order burdening the petitioner with an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The argument is that under Standing Order No. 1(b) of the said Ordinance a permanent workman is defined as "Workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment", whereas in terms of Standing A Order 10-B of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 the employer has been required to have all the permanent workmen employed by him insured against natural death and disability and death and injury arising out of contingencies not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965. To elaborate his argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to an application moved by Respondent No. 1 himself on the death of Muhammad Afzal claiming his wages during sixteen working days in the month August, 2004 and in this application the Respondent No 1 specifically mentioned that Muhammad Afzal was employed by the petitioner on 22.7.2004 and died on 21.8.2004, hence in the presence of this admission by Respondent No. 1 himself, neither he could claim Group Insurance nor the Respondent No. 2/Commissioner Workmen's Compensation could accept the application of Respondent No. 1, because said Muhammad Afzal could not be considered as permanent employee of the petitioner Mills before the completion of nine months service in terms of the Standing Order, referred to above.
5. When questioned about the said application and admission contained therein, the Respondent No. 1 present in Court, failed to give any satisfactory reply except to contend that he was a poor man and the impugned order was rightly passed in his favour by Respondent No 2.
6. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered in the context of legal proposition canvassed by the learned counsel and also in the light of material available on record.
7. Prima facie the findings of Respondent No.2/Commissioner Workmen's Compensation on the question whether at the time of his death, Muhammad Afzal deceased was a permanent employee of the petitioner or not, is wanting in the impugned order, whereas, without recording such findings the Respondent No. 2 could not have burdened the petitioner for payment of Group Insurance to Respondent No. 1. This petition therefore, is allowed, the impugned order of learned Respondent No. 2 dated 17.1.2006 is set-aside being without lawful authority and case is remitted to Respondent No.2/Commissioner Workmen's Compensation with a direction to decide the same afresh after recording specific findings as to whether Muhammad Afzal at the time of his death was a permanent employee of the petitioner as required by Standing Order, 1 and 10-B of the said Ordinance. The parties are directed to appear before learned Respondent No.2/Commissioner Workmen's Compensation on 22.5.2006 and the said Respondent No. 2 shall ensure that the matter is finally decided and disposed of as early as possible as but not later than 31.7.2006, however,