1. DECISION ' ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, MEMBER.--- This appeal has come to this Tribunal challenging the order dated 31:1.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad Region, in Application No,05 of 2010 under Section 8(1) 10-B of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 whereby the said application was dismissed.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Mehboob Qureshi learned Representative for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan learned Counsel for the respondent textile mills and they have also submitted their written synopsis.
3. ' I have gone through the case file as well as the arguments led by both parties learned Representative/Counsel.
4. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant had joined the employment in the respondents mill on 27.7.2007. The appellant had obtained "B-2 Form" for medical treatment from the Social Security Hospital. The Doctor declared him fit to resume duty from 04.7.2008 and the appellant admittedly joined his duty; which fact the appellant had admitted in his cross-examination before the learned Authority. Appellant had again proceeded on social security leave from 07.7.2008. The leave form "M-2" which has come on record of the learned Authority, the appellant remained on leave upto 09.01.2009. Since thereafter learned Counsel for the respondents has asserted and pointed out to me that the appellant continuously remained absent from duty and instead joining of service, he filed an application before the learned Authority and whereby he claimed Rs,200,000/- on account of his alleged disability. The respondents did not accept the claim of the appellant, as according to the respondents the claim is illegal and he malafidely wants to extort Rs,200,000/- from the respondents. The appellant also pressurized the respondents to refer him to Medical Board because the appellant in one way or the other wanted to get himself unfit to work.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to the admissions which the appellant had admitted in his cross-examination before the learned Authority that, "it is correct that the Social Security had declared him fit for duty from 04.7.2008 and he had come on duty on 05.7.2008." The appellant during his cross-examination has further admitted that he has been living in Karachi for the last about 2 or 2-1/2 years." Here, I am inclined to accept the contentions of the respondents that virtually the appellant had deserted service and he wants financial benefits from the respondents mill while sitting at home without any work.
6. ' The appellant contents that he is a heart patient and has been declared unfit by the Medical Board. Even from the examination report, it is proved that affect of earning capacity is temporary. It means that he can be cured by treatment. With regard to the contention of the appellant, it is to be noted that he has not suffered due to his work in the respondents mill. Now-a-days heart diseases are spreading from child to old person, it does not necessarily prevent a heart patient from work.
7. Even otherwise, respondents mill or any institution cannot be held responsible for the disease and to pay him Rs,200,000/-. The learned Authority has rightly said that the learned Representative for the appellant worker could not get any single word in his favour from the respondents witness.
8. ' Learned Authority has also mentioned in his order that the case of appellant on the same issue had already been dismissed on 25.10.2010, so his present application on which the impugned order has been passed suffers from the principle of Res judicata. The learned Representative for the appellant could not meet this objection. What is said on the part of the appellant that his Representative has blamed in his written arguments that the impugned order has been passed in the light of "chamak". It is a clear cut serious allegation on the learned Authority, which the appellant be required to substantiate and prove.
9. ' From the upshot of the above discussions, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Authority, as a. Result whereof, the appeal in hand is dismissed.