DECISION ' The appellant, who was employed as Totawala in the respondent Industries, sustained injuries to his left foot on 22nd June, 1978 whilst engaged in the performance of his duties with the respondent Industries. He was given 'B-2' form by the employer for treatment in the Sind Employees' Social Security Institution Hospital at Karachi but it appears that he was treated in the said Hospital as outdoor patient for one day only and thereafter he had to take private treatment at the Jinnah Hospital for which treatment payment was duly made by the employer. The appellant, on 3rd October. 197& brought a claim against the respondent Industries for Rs, 3,175 as compensation, under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The claim was resisted by the respondent Industries on the ground that the appellant was a secured worker for the purposes of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, and hence his claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act was barred by section 81 of the said Ordinance.
2. At the hearing of the claim of the appellant the appellant examined himself while the respondent examined their Manager, Muhammad Ashraf, as also the Social Security Officer Incharge of the contributions in the S.I.T.E., area, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf son of Muhammad Akbar. The latter Officer produced the contribution schedule for June, 1978 as paid by the respondent. In that schedule, the name of the appellant appears at Serial No,
41. In view of this evidence the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, rejected the claim of the appellant as barred by section 81 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965.
3. It was not disputed by Ch. M. Maarif, the learned representative of the appellant, that the provisions of the Provincial Employee's Social Security Ordinance, 1965, are applicable to the employment in the respondent Industries. He, however, submitted that no contribution had been paid by the respondent Industries in respect of the appellant before the latter sustained injuries nor was he registered with the Social Security Institution till that date and it was on that account that the appellant was not treated by the Social Security Hospital but had to be referred to the Jinnah Hospital. It may, however, be pointed out that Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, defines a "secured person" as "a person in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under this Ordinance". It has been established from the evidence led before the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation that contributions in respect of the appellant were paid by the respondent, though the contributions appeared to have been paid after the appellant had sustained the injuries in respect of which he is claiming compensation. The reason for the subsequent payment of contribution in respect of the appellant was that the appellant had joined the respondent Industries only a few days before he met with the accident and obviously contribution for the month of June, in which he joined the respondent Industries, could only be paid after the close of that month. In any case, on the appellant's becoming employee in the respondent Industries, the contributions in respect of him became payable and hence he was deemed to be a secured person. As such the bar contained in section 81 of the Ordinance would be deemed to apply to him from the date that he was employed in the respondent Industries. The registration of the appellant' with the Social Security Institution may be a convenient mode for enabling the Institution to identify the persons who are entitled to treatment and benefits under the Ordinance but the entitlement under law accrues as soon as the person is engaged in an employment which is covered by the Ordinance, as in the present case.
4. In view of the above position, I would uphold the finding of the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, that the claim of the appellant under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is barred by section 81 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance.
1965. His claim, if any, can only lie under the provisions of the said Ordinance.