DECISION This purports to be an appeal against an order made by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (East Division) on 18th September, 1980, awarding a sum of Rs, 15,000 to the respondent as his group insurance amount under Standing Order 10-B and a further amount of Rs, 2,036.78 on account of his other legal dues.
2. The impugned order cannot be considered to be a spearing order as the objections raised by the appellants to the award of compensation and other dues, specially, the issue whether there was relationship of employer and employee between the appellants and the respondent have not been examined by the learned Commissioner in his impugned order. However, this Tribunal has been repeatedly holding that no appeal lies against an order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, passed under Standing Order 10-B. The latest decision on his point has been given in the case of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation v. Mst. Nawab Bibi and another decided on 25th November, 1980. In that case it was observed by this Tribunal as follows :- "It may finally be pointed out that this Tribunal has repeatedly held that no appeal lies against a decision given by the Commissioner under Standing Order 10-B, since the matters in respect of which appeal can be preferred are limited to those specified in subsection (1) of section 30 of the Workman's Compensation Act. The earliest decision to this effect was given by this Tribunal in the case of Re : Daily Mashriq v. Mst. Roshan Khatoon decided on 23rd July, 1975. The said decision was followed in the cases of Tanweer Textile Mills v. Mst. Ameena and Rice Export Corporation v. Raees Bibi, decided on 7th March, 1977. I am in respectful agrec. Ment with this view."1
3. As regards that portion of the order which relates to other dues awarded to the respondent it appears that an appeal was preferred under the Payment of Wages Act to the learned Labour Court and the appeal has since been decided.
4. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is dismissed as not, maintainable. It will, of course, be open to the appellant, if to advised to approach the High Court in this Constitutional jurisdiction. 1976 PLC 92