' This appeal is directed against the award of a sum of Rs, 12,000 being Group Insurance money deposited by the third respondent, Messrs Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd., in respect of the death of their employee Wali Mohammad son of Abdul Ghani.
2. Wali Mohammad son of Abdul Ghani who was employed as a labourer by the 3rd respondent, died on 15-9-1976. The 3rd respondent deposited before the learned Commissioner, a sum of Rs, 12,000 being the Group Insurance amount in respect of his death under Standing Order 10-B. The 2nd respondent applied to the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for award of the aforesaid amount. The appellant submitted an application to the learned Commissioner resisting the claim of the 2nd respondent and claimed that he was entitled to the said Group Insurance amount as he was the nominee of deceased Wali Mohammad in respect thereof. The learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent, Mst. Fatima, was the real mother of deceased Wali Mohammad and accordingly awarded the entire amount to her by his order, dated 29-4-1980. Against the said order, the appellant preferred a review application but the same has been dismissed by the learned Commissioner by his order, dated 4-8-1980, on the ground that the review petition was not maintainable as no powers of review are enjoyed by him. The appellant has now come up to this Tribunal in appeal.
3. As regards the first order of the learned Commissioner which was passed on 29-4-1980, the present appeal which is filed on 19-8-1980, is clearly barred by limitation, having been filed more than 60 days after the date of passing the said order. As regards the second order, passed on the review petition, it is unassailable as clearly the learned Commissioner has no power to review his own orders, as held in the case of Akhtar Zaman v. Messrs Dilawar Brothers.
4. It may also be pointed out that an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, lies only in those cases where a substantial question of law is involved. In the instant case, no such question appears to be involved. Under Standing Order 10-B, the Group Insurance amount in case of death of a workman is payable only to the heirs of the deceased. The appellant admittedly is not a heir of the deceased and is accordingly not entitled to the said amount. In fact he has no locus standi to file the present proceedings. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the second respondent, Mst. Fatima, was the real mother of deceased Wali Mohammad. That finding is sought to be challenged on the ground that whereas Wali Mohammad is the son of Abdul Ghani, Mst. Fatima, according to her own evidence was never married to Abdul Ghani. The discrepancy in this behalf has been explained by Mst. Fatima in her evidence. She has testified that she was first married to Jafar and it was from him that she begot deceased Wali Mohammad. After the death of Jafar, Wali Mohammad was brought up and lived with Mst. Fatima's brother, Abdul Ghani. It was apparently on this account that Wali Mohammad adopted the name of Mst. Fatima's brother, who was in fact his adopted father.
5. For the reason stated by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine. 1978 PLC 266