1. ' The present application has been filed on 3rd June 1981, by the applicant, for recovery of gratuity and Group Life Insurance amount, on account of. Muhammad Bux his father's death from the opponent Briefly, the facts of the case are that the deceased Muhammad Bux son of Karim Bux, was employed under the opponent on 21st May, 1952 on work-charged establishment and expired as natural death on 8th March, 1981, while in employment under the opponent. At the time of his death the applicant's deceased father was allegedly getting Rs. 361 as monthly wages, being a monthly-rated workman. On the basis of this rate of wages the claim of gratuity amounting to Rs.
2. 6,979 and that of Group Life Insurance amounting to Rs. 15,000 has been claimed by the applicant.
3. ' In response to Court Notice, the opponent filed written statement denying the liabilities of the claim as aforesaid. The following issues were settled with the consent of the parties.
(1) Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to try this matter.
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled to relief/claim' or any part thereof.
(3) What should the order be.
4. ' Since the facts, with regard to employment, its duration and monthly wages, have not been disputed, both the parties agreed and made submissions that it will be convenient and sufficient to dispose of the application by determining, the legal issues involved in the matter, on the basis of arguments only.
5. ' Arguments of the learned Advocates of both the sides were heard, and on the basis of the submissions and taking into consideration the pleadings, etc. My findings and reasons, therefor are as under :- Issue No. 1- ' Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the applicant, referred me to the provisions of Standing Order 10-B(5) and Standing Order 12(9) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and contended that this Court has specifically been vested with the powers/jurisdiction to determine and recover the gratuity and Group. Life Insurance therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to decide the application.
6. ' In support of his contention, he cited PLC 1980 222 and PLC 1980 239, wherein it was held that the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation has the jurisdiction to determine such claim.
7. ' The opponents' side could not point out any law or authority contrary to the above.
8. In view of the specific provisions of law, as referred to above and authorities cited as above, I hold that this. Court has the jurisdiction to .4 try the application.
9. ' The issue is accordingly decided.
10. Issue No 2- ' It was the sole contention of the learned AGP Mr., M. Ibrallim Soomro, the counsel for the opponent, that the deceased workman was employed on work-charged establishment and his terms and conditions of service were governed by the provisions of P.W.D. Manual and according to him, have the force of statutory rules of service, which bars the jurisdiction of this Court, because the, deceased- worker has not been made entitled to gratuity or Group Life Insurance under P.W.D.
11. Manual. 'He vehemently denied the liability of the claim by the opponent on this point alone.
12. ' The submission of Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the applicant, was that the question whether the P.W.D. Manual has got the force of statutory rules of service, has thoroughly and elaborately been examined by his Lordship Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Z. A. Channa, Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, (unreported Judgment in Appeal No. HYD-336 of 1979, decided on 28th October, 1980) and while repelling the contention of the Government of Sind, in similar case, he has categorically held that the rules contained in P.W.D. Manual are not statutory rules.
13. ' It was next contended by him that recently this issue, point has again been decided by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, as reported in PLC 1981 SLAT 491, where it has again been held that the provisions of P. W. D. Manual are not statutory rules.
14. ' Mr. Soomro, the learned AGP attempted to distinguish the above authorities, on the ground that parties in both the appeals, were Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Sind, whereas the present application has been filed against the Mechanical Division. On this point Mr. Awan, pointed out that opponent, i. e, Mechanical Division, is one of the component-parts/Divisions of the Irrigation and Power Department, Government' of Sind, and authorities quoted are equally applicable and binding on the entire departments, including the present opponent.
15. ' The next contention of Mr. Soomro, was that since the Establishment of the opponent, is being run under the authority of Government of Sind, hence the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, are not applicable thereon. To this Mr. Awan, took the stand that the applicability of the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is, in the nature of presumptive character and a department claiming exemption from the operation of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, has to show that statutory rules of service, conduct and discipline, are applicable to the workmen employed under them. He quoted law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case, as reported in PLD 1981 SC 81, in support of his contention.
16. ' The learned A.G.P., at the stage of argument submitted a copy of the Gazette Notification dated 21st June, 1963, purported to be "The West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules" applicable to the applicant. But the learned counsel Mr. Awan, pointed out that these rules have been framed for the purpose of granting "pension" etc. To the employees, whereas the case before this Court pertains to claim of Group Life Insurance and Gratuity. Moreover, he referred me to rule 1.5(i) of the aforesaid Rules, which excludes its applicability on work charged establishment to which category the deceased admittedly belonged.
17. ' Lastly Mr. Awan, submitted that the deceased worker admittedly having served the department for a period- of 29 years, attained the status of a permanent workman as contemplated in Standing Order No. 1 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
18. ' He relied upon eight decisions in Applications No. 71/80, 106/80, 218/80, 219/80, 220/80, 221/80, 223/ 80, and 259/80 decided on 9th May, 1981 by this; Court, allowing the similar Claim.
19. Having carefully gone through the relevant provisions of law and case-law cited hereinabove, I came to the conclusion that the deceased workman was a permanent workman within the meaning of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and is entitled to the service benefits in the nature of Gratuity and Group Life Insurance as admissible under the Ordinance aforesaid.
20. ' The issue is answered accordingly. Issue No. 3- ' The deceased admittedly worked for 29 years, and was drawing Rs. 361 per month, being a monthly-rated workman. The service benefits as prayed in the application come as under :- {{TABLE}} Rs.
(1) Gratuity for 29 years. 6,979
(ii) Group Life Insurance. 15,000 Total 21,979 {{TABLE}} ' Accordingly I award Rs. 21,979 (Rupees Twenty one thousand nine hundred seventy-nine only) and in addition Rs. 43 his costs ; In all I award Rs. 22,022 (Rs. Twenty-two thousand and twenty-two only), and direct the opponent to deposit the same with this Court within thirty days for distribution to the dependents/heirs of the deceased workman.