' MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioners seek declaration to the effect that order dated 31-1- 2005 passed by respondent No,1 Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Hazara Division at Haripur is illegal, unlawful, against the mandatory statutory provisions of law, result of exercise in excess of jurisdiction and therefore of no legal effect.
2. It was averred in petition that petitioner No,1 is a private limited company and the instant petition is being filed through its Managing Director. Petitioner No,1 and petitioner No,2, General Manager are competent to institute this petition. One Muhammad Riaz, husband of respondent No,1 Ex- worker TIP was employed purely on temporary basis against a contract of 87 days commencing from 8-7-2002 till 4-10-2002. During employment on contract basis, Muhammad Riaz died his natural death on 24-7-2002. Respondent No,2 instituted a claim for the recovery of Group Insurance in respect of her deceased husband before respondent No,
1. The claim of respondent No,2 was contested by the petitioners and petitioners also filed an application for dismissal of the claim. After recording pro and contra evidence and hearing the parties, learned Commissioner Workmen Compensation vide order dated 31-1-2005 held applicant entitled for Compulsory Group Insurance.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that after insertion of section 2-A in the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973, every person employed in the establishment has been declared as Civil Servant, , therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Federal Service Tribunal in all matters pertaining to terms and conditions of service. It was further contended that the claim filed by respondent No,2 in respect of her deceased husband pertains to terms and conditions of service, hence respondent No,1 has got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate up ban the list due to bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution. It was concluded that impugned order being violate of law is liable to be set aside and the claim application be dismissed being not maintainable. Reliance was placed on 2000 PLC (C.S.) 1082, 1998 PLC 180, 2003 PLC 184, 2001 PLC 348, 1992 PLC 1142 and 2006 PLC 200.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No,2 while supporting the impugned order contended that petitioner was an employee working for the last 12/13 years in the establishment of the petitioners, therefore, respondent has been rightly held entitled for recovery of Group Insurance from petitioners. It was concluded that section 2-A has been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court, therefore, it does not apply to the present case. He placed reliance on 2001 PLC 28 and PLD 2006 SC 602.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Record would show that Muhammad Riaz, husband of respondent No,2 was engaged purely on temporary basis for a specified period of 87 days with effect from 8-7-2002. It is specifically mentioned in order, No,G.PD/F&P/DMP/22 dated 8-7-2002 that temporary engagement was liable to termination at any time without any notice or pay in lieu thereof from either side. It is further mentioned in the appointment order that husband of petitioner would only be entitled for medical facility for self and family as are available in the T&T Colony Hospital/Medical Officer TIP subject. To the Rules in force. As per his appointment letter he is not held entitled for any other allowance or Group Insurance.
7. It is worth mentioning that section 10-B of the Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Order Ordinance, 1968 does not apply to a contract employee. The question of insurance would only be A applicable in case of permanent worker. The learned Commissioner has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936) as the scope of his functions is very limited and he cannot adjudicate upon the complicated and intricate question of law and facts.
Authority under Payment of Wages/Compensation exercises summary jurisdiction and cannot determine the status of a workman.
' In the case of Lawrencepur Woollen and Textile Mills Ltd. v. Government of the Punjab and others reported in PLD 2004 SC 416 the apex court observed "that authority under the Payment of Wages Act is empowered to exercise certain powers and to take judicial proceedings as are vested in a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 but only for a very limited purpose. Authority does not have inherent powers which are available to a court of justice. Authority cannot render binding judgments on complicated questions of law. Process of investigation or adjudicating the claim of certain employees for giving a direction for payment of wages is not a trial of suit at law."
Keeping in view the dictum laid down by the superior Courts on the subject, we are left with no option but to hold that the impugned order dated 31-1-2005 was passed by respondent No,1 in excess of jurisdiction vested in him by law.
8. Consequently, we allow this writ petition and declare the order dated 31-1-2005 of respondent No,1 as illegal, without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside.