DECISION ' This appeal is directed against an order, made on 3rd July, 1980, by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (East Division), on an application made before him by Syed Akhtar Raza, the respondent herein, for award of compensation on account of the death of his brother, Syed Altamash Raza on 17th June, 1978, in consequence of the injuries sustained by him arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant-Corporation. Before discussing the merits of the case, two preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the appeal, made by Mr. Viqar Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent, are to be disposed of. The first objection is that though the impugned order was made on 3rd July, 1980 the appeal was filed on 27th October, 1980, much beyond the period of sixty days provided under subsection (2) of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. No doubt, the appeal was filed about one month and twenty-for days after the prescribed period of limitation but the appellant is clearly entitled to condonation of delay of this period. The appellant had submitted an application for copies on 6th July, 1980 but the copy of the impugned order was not supplied to him as it was not ready.
This has also been admitted by the learned Commissioner. The copy is said to have been ready on 27th July, 1980, when another copy of the impugned order is said to have been furnished to the respondent. On the other hand, there is the affidavit of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Ahmed, that he had moved another application for supply of copy on 27th July, 1980 and had personally approached the learned Commissioner on 31st July, 1980, 4th August, 1980, 6th August, 1980 and 9th August, 1980 but till 1st September, 1980, the copy was not furnished to him on the ground that it was not ready. It has been further stated by Mr. Muhammad Ahmed, in his affidavit, that he had made a third application to the learned Commissioner for supply of copy of the impugned order but his application was kept pending and the copy was not supplied to him.
On this application the learned Commissioner has passed the following orders :- "The matter is put to hearing for 23rd October, 1980. The interim stay is allowed till 23rd October, 1980."
' No order, however, was made in respect of the prayer of the learned counsel for supply of the copy of the impugned order. According to the affidavit of Mr. Muhammad Ahmed, it was only on 15th October, 1980, when the interim stay was granted by the learned Commissioner, that he was furnished copy of the impugned order. These circumstances, which have not been controverted, would seem to suggest that in spite of repeated efforts made by Mr. Muhammad Ahmed and also personal approaches by him to the learned Commissioner, singly and in the company of his Senior, Mr. S. H. Fani, Advocate, he was not supplied a copy of the impugned order. Even if I were to disregard the assertions made by Mr. Muhammad Ahmed in his affidavit the position remains that till 29th July 1980 the copy of the impugned order was not made ready though application for copies was made as early as on 6th July, 1980. There is nothing to indicate that after the copy was made ready after such a long interval a notice was issued to Mr. Muhammad Ahmed that the copy was ready and he should collect the same. I would, therefore, hold that the copy was made available to the appellant on 15th October, 1980 and that the period from 6th July, 1980 upto 15th October, 1980 be excluded as having been properly spent in obtaining the copy of the impugned orders. The exclusion of this period would make the appeal maintainable.
2. It was next contended by Mirza Vior Hussain that as the respondent had submitted a claim for compensation under Standing Order 10-B, the order of the learned Commissioner should be deemed to have been passed under the said Standing Order and hence no appeal lies against the impugned decision, as held by this Tribunal in the case of General Tyre & Rubber Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Hari son of Mawa, decided on 18th August 1980. Although the application by the respondent purports to have been made under Standing Order 10-B, the very first paragraph of his application recites that the claim is being made on account of the death of Syed Altamash Raza in consequence of the injuries received by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant-Corporation. As such, the claim by the respondent obviously was made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Moreover, the learned Commissioner himself in his impugned order was not certain whether the claim was being awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act or Standing Order 10-B. As such, the contention of Mr. Mirza Viqar Hussain as to the maintainability of this appeal on this ground is also repelled.
3. The objection to the impugned order is mainly based on the grounds that it is not a speaking order, that it does not decide under what law the compensation is being awarded and that finally it does not state or direct to whom the compensation is payable. In his very brief order, which does not discuss the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner, in the concluding paragraphs of his order, has held as follows :- "In view of the above discussion I am of the view the claim of the applicant is covered either of the two Acts, i,e, Standing Order 10-B or Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The respondent are therefore directed to deposit the amount of Rs, 15,000 being death compensation/Group Insurance of the deceased."
' It will be seen that the learned Commissioner was not clear in his mind whether the compensation was being awarded under Standing Order 10-B or the Workmen's Compensation Act. Moreover the order does not state to whom the compensation is payable. If the compensation was being awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it had to be awarded to the dependants of the deceased in the manner provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but if the compensation was being awarded under Standing Order 10-B, it had to be awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased, as provided in clause (4) of the said Standing Order.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the order of the learned Commissioner and remand the case to him for passing a fresh order after giving an opportunity to both parties of being heard, and such order should be a speaking order which should also state whethe the compensation was being awarded under the Workmen's Compensation. Act or Standing Order 10- B and to whom specifically the compensation was being awarded together with the reasons in support of such findings. The learned Commissioner is directed to give priority to this case and ensure its very early disposal.