' Noor Muhammad was a permanent employee of Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad (hereinafter referred to as the Mills). According to him, during his employment he contracted a skin disease which affected his eye sight. For treatment the Mills Management sent him to the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution, Faisalabad Region (hereinafter referred to as the Institution), from where he was further sent to a Skin Expert, Mayo Hospital, Lahore. While admitted in Mayo Hospital, Lahore, he completely lost his eye sight. Later on his services were terminated due to his blindness with usual admissible benefits.
2. After serving a grievance notice, he filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad against the Mills, Institution and State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Corporation), claiming group insurance under Standing Order 10-B of the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Mills in their written reply admitted paragraphs Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and against paragraph No, 3 it was admitted to the extent that it was the liability of the Institution for the said payment of group insurance. About paragraph No, 6 it was stated that they had no knowledge. In the prayer clause their own liability to pay to the respondent was denied. However, the Institution and the Insurance Corporation had in their written statements opposed the petition of the employee by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits. Noor Muhammad produced Altaf Hussain (P. W. 1), himself appeared as P. W. 2 and Ejaz Ahmad, Record Keeper, Social Security, Faisalabad as P. W.
3. No witness was produced by the Institution. The Insurance Corporation produced Imtiaz Ahmad, Clerk, as R. W. 1, who also tendered in evidence specimen of policy (Exh. R-1). Lt.-Col. Abu Talib shoukat, Administrative Manager, appeared as R. W. 2 on behalf of the Mills. The Labour Court vide impugned decision dated 26-9-1979 accepted the petition of Noor Muhammad and directed the Mills and the Insurance Corporation to deposit Rs, 21,000 with that Court on 18-10-1979. The impugned decision has been challenged by both these parties. The Mills filed Appeal No, JA- 669/79/Punjab on 17-10-1979 while the Insurance Corporation filed Appeal No, LHR-675/79-Punjab.
Since both these appeals arise out of the same impugned decision, they will be disposed of together by one judgment.
3. I have heard at length Mr. Javed Altaf, counsel for the Mills, Syed Sajjad, counsel for the Insurance Corporation, and Mr. Nazir Ahmad Naz, representative of Noor Mohammad. I have also perused the entire material available on the record.
4. The first argument advanced on behalf of both the Mills and the Insurance Corporation by their counsel is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and that the proper remedy for Noor Muhammad was to approach the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
5. It is not denied that Noor Muhammad is covered by the definition of worker as given under section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. A plain reading of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 shows that a worker can invoke the jurisdiction of at Labour Court against infringement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force. In the instant case we have to see whether the claim of Noor Muhammad for group insurance is guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law etc. He has claimed this relief under Standing Order 10-B of the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which is reproduced below :- "10-B. Compulsory group Insurance.-(1) The employer shall 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 (VIII of 1923), or the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (W. P. Ordinance No, X of 1965).
(2) The employer shall in all cases be responsible for the payment of the amount of pretnia and for all arrangements whether carried out by himself or through an insurance Company.
(3) The amount for which each workman shall be insured shall not be less than the amount of compensation specified in Schedule IV to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923).
(4) Where the employer fails to have a permanent workman employed by him insured in the manner laid down in clauses (1), (2) and (3) and such workman suffers death or injury arising out of contingencies mentioned in clause (1) the employer shall pay, in the case of death, to the heirs of such workman ; or in the case of injury, to the workman, such sum of money as would have been payable by the insurance company had such workman been insured.
(5) All claims of a workman or his heirs for recovery of money under clause (4) shall be settled in the same manner as is provided for the determination and recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923).
5. According to the above Standing Order, the employer is required to have all his permanent workmen 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. In other words, it is the right of permanent workmen that their employer should get them insured for the amount not less than the amount of compensation specified in the Schedule IV to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and pay the required premium in this behalf. In case the employer fails to have his permanent workmen insured under this Standing Order and such workman suffers death or injury arising out of contingencies mentioned in clause (1), the employer is required to pay, in the case of death, to the heirs of such workman or, in the case of injury, to the workman, such sum of money as would have been payable by the Insurance Company had such workman been insured. This clearly fixed the liability upon the employer to get his permanent workmen insured and in case he fails to do so, he will be liable to pay the same benefits of insurance, if occasion arises. The intention of the Legislature is quite clear that in case a permanent workman dies or is otherwise incapacitated to continue his employment, then to save his dependents or family members from starvation, the Law has imposed responsibility upon the employer to pay the required amount to his heirs or the workman himself, as the case may be. It is immaterial whether the employer gets his permanent workmen insured or not. If he does then as mentioned above he is liable to pay the premium and to meet other ancillary expenses and if he decides not to get them insured, even then he is liable to extend the same benefits of insurance to his permanent workmen. The right of a permanent workman is, therefore, fully secured under Standing Order 10-B of the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The words used in section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are "any law". This expression is not used in a restricted or limited sense but in a general sense. Any law means any law for the time being in for and undoubtedly the W. P.
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 will be covered by this expression. Consequently, against infringement of a right guaranteed or secured under Standing Order 10-B, a worker would be justified to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Ordinance. In the instant case Noor Muhammad was a permanent workman of the Mills and he lost his eye sight during his employment. According to the Mills Management, be was covered under the group insurance under Standing Order 10-B. However, he was not paid the required amount of group insurance either by his employer direct or through the Insurance Corporation. This was a clear violation of his right guaranteed or secured to him under Standing Order 10-B of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The Labour Court, therefore, was fully competent and justified to exercise its jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Ordinance. Although it has not been argued before me whether Noor Muhammad could approach the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, yet even if he has such power, it will not affect the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. It is not denied that remedy under section 25-A before the Labour Court is more beneficial to the worker and the case is decided strictly in judicial manners by the senior trained and experienced judicial Officers. In case the jurisdiction is concurrent, the choice will he with the workman invoking the jurisdiction. In the instant case, therefore, Noor Muhammad has rightly approached the Labour Court which was fully competent to adjudicate upon the issue involved in this case. Accordingly, I feel no hesitation to repel the contention raised by the counsel for both the Mills and the Insurance Corporation,
6. Mr. Javed Altaf, learned counsel for the Mills, has argued that under Standing Order 10-B the only obligation of the Management was to get Noor Muhammad insured and that was complied with and after this it is the duty of the Insurance Corporation to pay the group insurance to him. On the other hand, Syed Sajjad, learned counsel for the Insurance Corporation, has denied the liability of the Insurance Corporation. According to him, the case of Noor Muhammad was not covered by the terms and conditions of policy issued in this behalf. It is not for this Tribunal to decide whether the case of Noor Muhammad is covered by the terms and conditions of policy or not. The worker in such a situation should not be dragged into litigation and thereby causing unnecessary delay in the payment of group insurance, defeating the very purpose of law. Keeping in view the true spirit of Standing Order 10-B, it is the responsibility of the employer to pay such group insurance to the concerned worker immediately when occasion arises i,e,, death or injury to the worker. In case the employer has got the worker insured he can realise that amount subsequently from the Insurance Corporation. If he had not insured then it is his liability to pay the same to the worker. In case there is any dispute between the employer and the Insurance Corporation then it can be settled through proper forum but the worker should not be made to suffer for this. The proper course in such a situation for the employer is to pay the required amount to the worker and then to realise the same from the Insurance Corporation, or otherwise fight the case with it. The worker has nothing to do with the Insurance Corporation. Neither he pays any premium nor the Insurance Corporation pays group insurance direct to him. The payment is always made to the employer. It is doubtful whether the Labour Court will have jurisdiction in dispute between the employer and the Insurance Corporation regarding the payment of group insurance under Standing Order 10-B of the W. P.
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. However, this question does not arise in the instant case. Therefore, I am clearly of the view that the Crescent Jute Products as employer were legally bound to get Noor Muhammad insured and according to the Mills Management, he was duly insured. Whether be is covered by the terms and conditions of the policy is an issue between the Mills and the Insurance Corporation and it will not exonerate the Mills Management from their legal obligation to pay the required group insurance to Noor Muhammad.
7. In view of the above, it can safely be held that Noor Muhammad, being permanent employee of Crescent Jute Products, having completely lost his eye sight during his employment, was entitled to the payment of group insurance by the Mills. In other words, the Mills is legally bound to pay the required group insurance to Noor Muhammad under Standing Order 10-B of the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The result is that Appeal No, JA- 669/79-Punjab filed by the Mills fails and the same is hereby dismissed and the Mills Management is directed to pay the required amount of Rs, 21,000 as group insurance to Noor Muhammad, immediately. In case the Management fails to make the required payment, the United Bank Limited, Bank Square, Faisalabad shall, in compliance with their Bank Guarantee No, 114 dated 25-10-1980, make the said payment to Noor Muhammad. The Appeal No, LHR-675/79-Punjab filed by the Insurance Corporation is accepted with the observation that the Mills Management can settle this issue before a competent forum, but Noor Muhammad cannot have a direct claim against it.
8. The impugned decision of the Labour Court is modified to the above extent.