' B. G. N. KAZI, J.-The Constitutional Petitions call in question the refusal of the respondent Corporation to make payment against the, claims lodged with them by the petitioner-Company in respect of Compulsory Group Insurance Cover for its permanent workers as contemplated by Standing Order 10-B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance.
2. The facts which form the background of the two petitions are as under :-
3. The petitioner had approached the respondent to obtain Insurance Cover for all its permanent workers is contemplated by Standing Order 104 of the Ordinance, by application dated 7-11-1979 for Compulsory Group Insurance Policy. The application was made on the form supplied by respondent Corporation and in para. 8 thereof under the head, Additional Information there was statement as under :- "It is hereby agreed and understood that the Group Policy applied for under this Application shall not cover liability of the Employer under Workmen's Compensation Act or the contingencies covered by West Pakistan Employees Social Security Institution and that there shall be no contract of Insurance unless this Application is accepted by the insurer and that the Insurer's liability shall be governed by Group Master Policy issued on payment of the premium."
4. On the same date the respondent Corporation duly acknowledged the application of the petitioner for Compulsory Group Insurance together with a cheque of Rs, One lakh towards part payment of premium payable for the Proposed Group Insurance Scheme. The respondent Corporation in the aforesaid letter acknowledged the receipt of the application and the cheque towards part payment of premium under the proposed Insurance Scheme and confirmed that they had assumed risk on the lives of all full time permanent employees and indicated the amount of Insurance on monthly wages/salaries with effect from 7-11-1970. However, the respondent Corporation for determining a fair rate of premium applicable to the Group needed further information with regard to deaths and accidental disabilities that had occurred during the previous three years. In the post script it was stated that should the petitioner desire to have cover under Workmen's Compensation Act the respondents were prepared to provide the same on receipt of accidental data.
5. The needed information was supplied by the petitioner-Company and in the letter dated 3rd December, 1979 it was implicitly stated 'that the respondent-Corporation should note that a clause was to be provided in the Insurance Policy specifying that the petitioner is fully covered under the provisions of section 10-B of the Ordinance.
6. The respondent-Corporation in their letter dated 18-12-1979 on the subject of Group insurance Policy in question acknowledged the letter of the petitioner dated 3rd December, 1979 and further stated as under :- "We are pleased to State that we have computed the premium on the basis of lists supplied to us, under the provisions of section 10-B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, for your 4397 eligible, regular, permanent and full time employees active on duty, enjoying good health and having not attained their 60th birthday."
' It was further stated that ad hoc payment of Rs, 1,00,000 had been adjusted towards the annual premium and the respondent-Corporation required a further sum of Rs, 3,54,884.50 to bring the account of the petitioner up to date, assume their liabilities and issue the Group Insurance Policy Contract. The schedule of benefits, rates and costs for the period from 7-11-1979 to 6-11-1980 on Group Policy proposal and schedule of benefits was enclosed with the aforementioned letter showing the working out of the amount of premium and the amount payable by the petitioner in addition to the amount already paid.
7. The respondent Corporation in their registered letter dated 284-1980 addressed to the petitioner- Company enclosed Policy No, SIG-3160 dated 7-11-1979 and requested the petitioner-Company that confirmation slip attached to their letter be returned and further that in the event they did not hear anything to the contrary from the petitioner-Company in writing within 15 days of the receipt of their letter, the petitioner-Company would be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of the enclosed Policy. The clause suggested in letter of the petitioner dated 3rd December, 1979 specifying that the petitioner is fully covered under the provision of section 10-B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 did not find any place in the Policy and as time of 15 days had been given for any objections to be made in writing the petitioner Company in their registered letter dated 28-1-1980, pointed out that it was agreed in discussion held on 30-1-1980 that the respondent-Corporation will make following endorsement on the Policy :- "Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary under this Policy, the Policy holder is fully covered in respect of his liability under all provisions of Standing Order 10-B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and the Insurer will assume all responsibility and liabilities for payment of all moneys which the policy- holder is or may be or may become liable to pay to any person under the provisions of said Standing Order 10-B.
' In the event of any conflict between this clause and any other provisions of this Policy the provisions of this clause shall prevail."
' In reply to the aforesaid letter the respondent-Corporation in their letter dated 17th February, 1980 stated that the liability of the Corporation is governed by the terms and conditions of the Group Policy which specifies the contingencies on which the death or accidental injury benefits became payable according to the scale mentioned in the Policy Schedule. The Corporation further took the stand that provisions of Standing Order 10-B make the employer liable for certain compensation to his employees in the event of certain contingencies. All the risks provided for payment of compensation if specified precisely, are insurable with the State Life. It was further pointed out that the Policy issued covers the death due to any non-occupational causes and permanent disablement on account of off duty accidental injury and that it does not make the respondent liable for all the compensation which the employer is liable to pay. It was further stressed in the letter that respondents' liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the Group Policy No, SIG- 3160 and therefore they were not prepared to incorporate the clause as suggested by the petitioner by giving a blanket cover under the law in question.
8. In the meantime the petitioner-Company referred the cases of some of their workers for medical examination to the Medical Board. 12 permanent workers mentioned in C. R. No, 350 of 1980 and 2 mentioned in C. P. No, D-1307 of 1980 were declared unfit for further employment notwithstanding the fact that they had not crossed the age of retirement. They were declared unfit for further retention in the Company on account of disability by them because of some chronic disease suffered by them and their services were terminated. The petitioner-Company preferred (claims with respondent-Corporation for payment of Group Insurance under Standing Order 10-B of the Ordinance which were turned down.
9. The Standing Order 10-B as added in the Schedule of the Ordinance by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 and amended by P. O. No, 4 of 1975, Act XLVIII of 1974 and Act II of 1976, reads as under :- 10-B. Compulsory Group Insurance.-(1) The employer shall have all the permanent workers 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 premier and for all administrative 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 an 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 pay, in the case of death, to the heirs of such workman, or in case of injury to the workman, such sum of money as would have been payable by insurance company had such workman been insured.
(5) All claims of a workman of his heirs for recovery of money under clause (4) shall be settled in the same manner as in provided for the determination and recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923).
10. It may here be pointed out that in the decision of this Court in Constitutional Petition No, 1041 of 1978 it was held that clause (4) of the Standing Order 10-B, construed according to the sense of the Statute and the intention of the Legislature, would cover cases of natural death and disability referred to in clause (1), which indicates the liability of the employer in such cases which had to be covered by insurance.
11. The amendments to Standing Order 10-B and the decision of this Court interpreting the Standing Order were of earlier date and on 7-11-1979 when the petitioner-Company approached the respondent to obtain insurance cover for all their permanent workers there was no room for doubt with regard to the insurance cover contemplated under Standing Order 10-B.
12. From the facts already stated it is clear that the respondent-Corporation accepted the proposal in the application which was made on the form supplied by the respondent-Corporation and further as already stated looking to paragraph 4 under the heading Additional information in the aforesaid form the respondent-Corporation was aware of the fact that the Compulsory Group Insurance Cover was being sought as contemplated by Standing Order 10-B aforesaid. It may here be stated that it is the statutory obligation of the employer to provide Compulsory Group insurance Cover to all permanent workmen against risks of natural death, disability, death and injury arising oltt of contingencies not covered by the Workmen's Compensate Act, 1923 and Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965. Although there was no specific mention about these risks sought to be covered by the Compulsory Group Insurance Policy, it is obvious from the reply of respondent Corporation on the same date on which the application was received by them alongwith the cheque of Rupees one lakh towards part payment of premium payable for the proposed Group Insurance Scheme. That the respondent Corporation was aware of the risks to be covered under the scheme as they acknowledged the receipt of the application and cheque and confirmed that they had assumed risks of the lives of all full time permanent employees with effect from 7th November, 1979 and also indicated the amount of insurance on monthly wages/salaries.
Again the respondent Corporation in their letter dated 18-12-1979 on the subject of Group Insurance Policy in question acknowledged the letter of the petitioner dated 3rd December, 1979 and stated that they had computed the premium on the basis of list supplied to them under the provisions of section 10-B of the Ordinance for 4397 eligible, permanent and full time employees of the petitioner Company active on duty enjoying good health and having not attained their 60th birthday. It is apparent that so far the petitioner-Company was concerned from the very start they had been anxious to get Compulsory Insurance Cover for their permanent workers and although the contract of Insurance had yet to be drawn up in the form of Policy on the part of the respondent Corporation there was acceptance of proposal which was signified by them by acceptance of premium and by their conduct from which it was clear that they were dealing with Compulsory Group Insurance Cover as contemplated by Standing Order 10-B aforesaid. It is rightly contended on behalf of the petitioner that the memo with which the Group Insurance Policy was submitted itself shows that 15 days time had been given to the petitioner-Company for negotiating to agree to the terms and conditions in the policy and further that the objection was taken within the time by the petitioner- Company to suggest the endorsement of clause on the policy that notwithstanding anything contained therein the policy holder is fully covered in respect of his liability under all provisions of Standing Order 10-B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 including the risk of permanent disability a worker and the insurer will assume all its responsibility and liabilities for payment of all money which the policy holder is or may be or may become liable to pay to any person under the provisions of the Standing Order.
13. On behalf of respondent-Corporation a Preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the matter pertains to contractual rights of the parties under the Group Master Policy and, therefore, it cannot be enforced through writ petition.
Reliance has been placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in Messrs Memon Motor Company v. Regional Transport Authority, Dacca and others and the decision of this Court in Mir Rasool Bux Khan Sundrani v. The Peoples Municipality, Sukkur and two others. It is true that in ordinary matters concerning enforcement of contractual obligations the extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be utilized for determining and enforcing such rights. However, the facts of the instant case are different. The respondent-Corporation is established under Article 11 of the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 for the purpose of carrying on Life Insurance business and is a body corporate. Under Article 12 of the aforesaid order the Chairman and Directors of the Corporation are appointed by the Central Government. Under Article 14 the Legislature has prescribed the1 2 functions of the Corporation and it is the general duty of the Corporation to carry on Life Business whether in or outside Pakistan and it is further prescribed by the Legislature that the Corporation shall so exercise its powers under the order as to secure that Life Insurance business is developed to the best advantage of the community.
Mr. Irshad Hasan Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court in Haji Noor Muhammad and others v. Karachi Development Authority and 2 others wherein it was held that the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction has ample power to grant relief against the K. D. A. Which is a statutory authority and one of its functions is to prepare housing schemes, develop plots and give them to housing societies, individuals and construction companies.
14. Under Article 14 of the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 the general duty is cast on the respondent-Corporation to carry on Life Insurance business and so exercise its powers as to secure that Life business is developed to the best advantage of the community. In Dr. Habib-urRahman v.
West Pakistan Public Service Commission and others the Supreme Court considered the matter regarding prescription of statute relating to performance of public duty and referred to a passage in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (Edition 1962) page 369 which reads as under "Where the prescription of a statute relate to the performance of public duty and where the invalidation of acts done in neglect of them would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, yet not promote the essential aims of the Legislature, such prescriptions seem to be generally understood as mere instructions for the guidance and Government of those on whom the duty is imposed, are in other words as directory only.
' In the decision of the Supreme Court referred to there were instructions embodied in relevant letters issued by Provincial Government to the Public Service Commission which were considered to be in the nature of statutory Service Rules ordinarily binding on the Public Service Commission, in the matter of assessing merits of competing candidates. It was observed as under :- "Although we have remarked that the rules are to be regarded as being directory in nature and a disregard thereof would not necessarily vitiate the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission, yet it is clear that all statutory bodies and functionaries are under an obligation to act in accordance with the law and relevant rules and a deliberate or flagrant disregard thereof would render their acts without lawful authority so as to attract the power of judicial review vesting in the Superior Courts."
15. In view of the reasons given above the contention that the matte involved is one of contract simplicity and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same cannot be accepted.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has further argued that the respondent was not bound to issue Group Policy covering all risks under Standing Order 10-B as the employer had option under the Standing Order to insure or not, his permanent workmen in the matter laid down in clauses (1), (2) and (3) since clause (4) of the aforesaid Standing Order provides that if the employer fails to have permanent workman insured he shall pay in case of death, to the heirs of such workman ; or in case of injury to the workman such of money as would have been payable by insuran. However, a perusal of the clause would show that it is not an option given to the employer but on the contrary the duty is imposed on him by the law t insure all his permanent workman and therefore, he has no option in the matter. It is compulsory for him to insure them against all the 4 risks as se out in the Standing Order and clause (4) merely mentions the consequence by way of penalty in case he fails to carry out his duty. It was made clear at the very outset that the Group Insurance was being applied for as it was compulsory under Standing Order 10-B. On behalf of the respondent Corporation no reasons have been given as to why it could have considered that the proposal was not for a flat cover involving all the risks.3 4
17. The Standing Orders Ordinance is a beneficial legislation for ameliorating the lot of working class and the recent decision of this Court with regard to interpretation of Standing Order 10-B clearly fixes the liability of the Employer and the insurer. Any doubts about the risks not being covered can have no effect on the rights of the permanent workmen concerned.
18. Before concluding this judgment it may be stated that the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation contended that the claims in respect of the 14 workers in these petitions suffer from mala fides as the application for Group Insurance was made on 7-11-1979 the policy was issued rand delivered on 28-1-1980 and the workers could not have become permanently disabled within such a short time It is well settled that for the purpose of establishing a case of mala fides it has to be specifically pleaded and should be supported by some prima facie proof before the other side is called upon to explain. The workers were examined by Medical Board before being declared permanently disabled. The reason given for alleging mala fide is not at all convincing as a person can suffer permanent disability any time and the claim is in respect of 14 workers out of 4397 insured.
19. Under the circumstances, the two petitions are allowed with costs and the respondent Corporation is directed to discharge its statutory obligation by making payment of claim preferred to it as contemplated by Standing Order 10-B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. PLD 1972 SC 108 PLD 1975 Kar. 878 PLD 1975 Kar. 373 PLD 1973 SC 144