' Rabnawaz and 6 others, legal heirs of deceased Mureed Abbas, lodged this appeal under Order- 43 Rule-1/Section 104, CPC against the judgment/order of learned Civil Judge-I, Haripur, dated 17.02.2014, whereby plaint was returned to the appellants under Order-WI Rule 10, CPC.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs, in their capacity as legal heirs of deceased Mureed Abbas, had filed suit for recovery of damages amounting to Rs, 5,000,000/- under Fatal Accidental Act on account of death of Mureed Abbas, who, according to the appellants/plaintiffs was worker/employee of Izhar Limited (Respondent No, 2) on monthly salary of Rs,7500/-. According to averments in the plaint, deceased Mureed Abbas received burn injuries due to negligence and carelessness of welder, Raees (Respondent No, 4) at 0900 hours on 24.07.2010; and succumbed to his injuries on 25.07.2010.
The appellants/plaintiffs alleged,, in their plaint, that neither during treatment of the deceased nor after his death the compensation and insurance were paid to them by the respondents for death of Mureed Abbas who died at the age of about 35 years.
3. The suit was contested by Respondents No, 2 to 5/defendants by filing their written statement, leading to framing of following seven issues;
1. Whether the plaintiffs have got a cause of action?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to sue?
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?
4 Whether deceased Mureed Abbas was an employee of Izhar Limited Company?
5. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction?
6. Whether the company is liable to pay compensation amount Rs,50,00,000/- to the plaintiffs?
7. Relief?
4. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court/Civil Judge-VI, Haripur, returned plaint to the appellants/plaintiffs on the basis of findings on Issue No, 5, relating to jurisdiction of the Court, while holding rest of the issues redundant vide judgment dated 17.02.2014, which is impugned herein.
5. While dealing with the question of jurisdiction under Issue No, 5, the learned trial Court/Civil Judge-VI, Haripur arrived at the conclusion that; "As per Section 19 of the Worksman Compensation Act, 1923 any Civil Court las got no jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is to dealt with by a commissioner.
' The question of liability of compensation including the question as to whether a person injured is or is not a workman shall be settled by a commissioner.
6. The learned Court, however, lost sight of the fact that as a necessary requirement, the question of jurisdiction should have been dealt with at the inception stage of the suit; but once issues were framed, the judgment had to conform to the mandatory requirement of Order-XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and Court to state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue. It may be added here that adherence to the aforesaid provision of law assumed significance in view, of Issue No, 4 relating to the fact "Whether deceased Mureed Abbas was an employee of Izhar Limited Company".
7. The learned trial Court did not state its finding or decision on this issue of pivotal importance, leaving the same to be settled by a commissioner under Worksman Compensation Act, 1923; even after recording evidence of the parties and concluding trial in the case. Needless to -say that this issue had a close nexus with the issue concerning jurisdiction of the Court, as finding/decision on the issue could have bearing on the finding/decision of the Court on issue of jurisdiction.
8. It seems the learned trial Court was oblivious of the fact that after pleading their cause in the Civil Court for around oblivious of the fact that after pleading three years, plaintiffs/petitioners were asked to approach commissioner under Worksman Compensation Act, 1923; who could hold the deceased not a Worksman, and thus obliging legal heirs to approach the Civil Court once again for redressal of their grievances and enforcement of their rights guaranteed by law and constitution.
9. In any case, the impugned judgment dated 17.02.2014 is in blatant violation of Order-XX Rule 5, CPC, hence not sustainable.
10. Therefore, on acceptance of the appeal, the impugned order is set aside, and the case is remanded/sent back to the learned trial Court/Civil Judge, Haripur, for decision afresh on all the issues framed in the case, and recording findings/decision, with reasons therefor, in accordance with the aforementioned provision of law, at the earliest, preferably within a month of the receipt of this judgment/ order. The record of the case be transmitted to the trial Court forthwith.