MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J.--- Through this petition, the functioning of respondent No,1 as Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has been challenged on the ground that he had no locus standi to pass any order as he has not been notified against the said post. It is further prayed that the orders for condoning the delay in filing the application for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 may be set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No,2 is the widow of one Muhammad Iqbal ex- security guard of the petitioner-company, who died on 5-12-2004 during the duty in a road accident.
3. The respondent No,1 moved an application on 23-5-2009 to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and prayed for getting the compensation from the petitioner-company.
4. The application was entertained by the respondent No,l. By condoning the delay and summonses were issued. According to the order sheets, the respondent/present petitioner was served but none appeared on 16-12-2009 and on 7-1-2010 the counsel for the company requested for adjournment to file the written statement. The case was adjourned to 1-2-2010 but again none appeared on behalf of the company/petitioner before the Commissioner and the case was adjourned to 15-2-2010.
5. Thereafter the petitioner instead of contesting the case over there, filed the present petition with the prayer of quo warranto as well as mandamus against the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application in question was not submitted before the learned Tribunal in duplicate on Form "G" and was hopelessly barred by time. It was not supported by a certificate by the applicant to the effect that the contents of application are accurate; therefore, it could not have been entertained. He further submitted that the respondent No,1 has not shown his locus standi to work as Compensation Commissioner in the Islamabad territory and, therefore, all his actions are null and void. The learned counsel relied upon the case-law reported in 1981 SCM R 705, wherein it was held that there must be sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay and mere statement about the illiteracy of petitioner is not a ground which can be sustained in the -eyes of law. He also relied upon a case reported in 2010 PLC 1, of the Hon'ble Karachi High Court, whereby it was held that the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation has no power to review his own order and, therefore, the petitioner has directly approached this court. Lastly he relied upon the case reported in 2010 CLC 323 on the point that limitation is not a technicality, because it confers a very valuable right on the other party.
6. In rebuttal the counsel for respondent No,1 appeared and produced the copy of Notification No,13(4)-Admn/85 dated 1-12-1988 according to which the Director Labour Welfare, ICT has been appointed as Commissioner for the purposes of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 within the revenue limits of Islamabad territory.
7. Respondent No,2 in support of their parawise comments submitted that the delay was condoned by the Commissioner and she had given an affidavit in support of her application. It is further submitted by her counsel that her legal rights cannot be knocked out on the basis of technicalities and if there is any procedural defect, it can be rectified. In support of his contentions, he relied upon 1994 PLC page 7 of Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab and 2002 PLC 269 of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
9. The first objection is about the appointment and functioning of respondent No,1 as Commissioner under the Act, 1923.
10. The Notification dated 1-12-1988 referred above has been placed on record, which states that the Director Labour, ICT has been appointed as Commissioner for the purposes of Act, 1923 with immediate effect and until further orders within the revenue limits of Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT), therefore, this ground is not available to the petitioner.
11. As far as point about the condonation of delay is concerned, proviso clause of section 10(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 empowers the Commissioner to entertain and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given or the claim has not been preferred in due time if he is satisfied that it was due to sufficient cause. This clause empowers the Commissioner to entertain any claim filed after time if he is satisfied that there is sufficient cause.
12, In the present case, the respondent No,2 is a widow belonging to a far-flung area of Attock and she had given an affidavit before the learned forum for permission to file application because she is a widow and her application to the company remained undisposed of. This was considered a sufficient cause for condonation of delay and therefore, no interference is warranted to disturb his discretion.
13. The petitioner in this case behaved in a very strange manner Instead of appearing and contesting the case before the learned lower forum, the instant petition was preferred to delay the proceedings of the case.
14. The intent and purpose of special enactments is to provide speedy relief to the aggrieved persons and if such practice through writ petitions is allowed, the poor would never get their rights because they cannot afford the expenses of lengthy litigation. The courts cannot allow the top notches of the corporation/companies to satisfy their ego by incurring heavy expenses in litigation instead of paying petty amount to the poor widows for the services of their late husbands. The time factor is also very important, and dragging of poor ladies into the courts cannot be appreciated by any rhyme or reason. The employers are supposed to be the guardians of the employees and their families. They should earn good will instead of creating hardships to the bereaved families. This practice is depreciated where the poor ladies are forced to spend the precious time of their life for getting their legal right in form of a petty amount.
15. Coming to the last objection about filing of application in violation of prescribed form, it is observed that this is a defect of procedure which, under law, cannot constitute valid basis for throwing out the claim of a poor widow. Such defects can always be rectified with permission of Commissioner at any stage. The purpose of law is to help people for redressal of their grievances instead of going through the torturous lengthy litigation.
16. It is also observed that such matters require special attention for speedy disposal, the Compensation Commissioner is, therefore, directed to dispose of the matter as soon as possible but not later than two months and if claim is accepted, the Commissioner should also ensure that the amount is deposited directly in the account of widow and her children, so that she may not be deprived of the money by any other deceitful manner.
17. Keeping in view the above observations, the petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs,5000 to be paid to the widow/respondent No,2.