' The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.06.2016 wherein the leaned Single Judge accepted the petition of Respondent No,1 and awarded her the pension along with service benefits that her deceased husband was entitled to.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that Respondent No,1 had remedy before the Compensation Tribunal under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 ("Act") and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.
3. The preamble of the Act provides that the Act has been promulgated to compensate an employee who has been injured during the course of his employment. The case of Respondent No,1 was not of compensation but was for grant of pensionary benefits, which she was denied on account of the fact that disciplinary proceedings have been ordered against her deceased husband on 21.08.2002 by the Appellant Department after the death of her husband on 20.08.2002.
Therefore the jurisdictional objection not only is without merit but is also misconceived as the basic question addressed in the impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge is whether the disciplinary proceedings could continue after the death of an employee.
4. The facts of the case are that husband of Respondent No,1 while working as Senior Commercial Assistant (Parcel) Railway, Lahore was issued a show cause notice under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 ("Ordinance") on 01.02.2002. Ultimately, order dated 21.08.2002 was issued wherein major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him w,e,f, 06.08.2002 however, the husband of Respondent No,1 died on 20.08.2002. Respondent No,1 applied for all service benefits along with pension of her deceased husband, which application was ultimately declined. The learned Single Judge held that disciplinary proceedings can only be initiated against an employee for his non-performance or ill-performance of his duties, who is alive and in the service of the organization/department. The impugned judgment further finds that if an employee dies during the pendency of disciplinary proceeding then such disciplinary proceeding will abate after the death of the employee. In the case before us the husband of Respondent No,1 died on 20.08.2002 and the disciplinary proceedings were ordered on 21.08.2002 after his death.
Since the husband of Respondent No,1 died, the disciplinary proceeding abated and as such no order could have been passed against the deceased employee. As such no illegality has been made out against the impugned judgment. We are in agreement with the findings of learned Single Judge. Appeal is dismissed.