DECISION ' This purports to be an appeal against an order passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, East Division, on 24th November, 1981 dismissing the application filed by him on 21st January, 1981 for the restoration of petition made by him under Standing Orders 10-B, claiming compensation on account of the death of his father Gul Hassan, whilst in the employment of the respondent Mills.
2. The facts which form the background of this appeal, shortly stated, are that on 14th December, 1979 the appellant submitted an application under. Standing Order 10-B claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 15,000 on account of the death of his father, Gul Hassan, whilst in the employment of the respondent-Company. This application was dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, by his order dated 10th August 1980, on the ground that deceased Gul Hassan was a Chowkidar and hence the Standing Orders are not applicable to his employment.
This view was founded on a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Khuda Dad Khan National Construction Company, decided on 20th April, 1980, holding that a chowkidar is not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders and hence the Standing Orders are not applicable to the employment of chowikdars. An appeal against the said order was preferred to this Tribunal without filing a copy of the order of the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation on the ground that copy of the said order was not supplied to the appellant. The appeal, however, was withdrawn by Ch. M. Maarif on 21st January, 1981 on the ground that he wished to file a restoration application.
This Tribunal, while disposing of the appeal as not pressed, observed that the appellant appears to be entitled to file the restoration application. This observation was made on the basis of the avertment in the Memorandum of Appeal that the claim of the appellant had been dismissed by the learned Commissioner for default. On the following day i. e. 21st January, 1981, the appellant filed a restoration application before the learned Commissioner wherein also he alleged that his claim for compensation on account of the death of his father, Gul Hassan had been dismissed for default. The learned Commissioner, by his order, dated 24th November, 1981, has dismissed the restoration application on the ground that it has been made beyond the period of limitation.
3. The present appeal is liable to be dismissed on more than one ground. In the first place, the claim of the appellant was dismissed on 10th August, 1980 not for default, but on the ground that the appellant's father was a chowkidar and to his employment the Standing Orders are not applicable. It is contended by Ch. M. Maarif the learned representative for the appellant, that his order in fact, was not in existence on 10th August, 1980. There is, however, an order on the diary, dated 10th August, 1980, which reads as follows:- "Applicant called absent. Rep. For respondent is present. The application is dismissed Rep. For applicant later on appeared and noted the order".
The said order bears at its foot the initials of Ch. M. Maarif and the date 10th August, 1980 but the 8th month subsequently had been sought to be altered. It is not known by whom and when this alteration was sought to be made. The original date 10th August, 1980 however, can still clearly be read. A bare perusal of the above order in the diary would seem to suggest that the ing the appeal was passed and thereafter the learned representative for the applicant appeared and noted the order. Even if I were to accept the contention of Mr. Ch. Maarif that the detailed order, dated 10th August 1980, was not recorded on 10th August, 1980, but subsequently and that the claim of the appellant was dismissed on the above date on account of the non-appearance of the learned representative, the restoration application, which was filed on 21st January, 1981, was much beyond the period of limitation as has been observed by the successor of the Commissioner who made the order, dated 10th August, 1980. It may be mentioned that it was frankly conceded by Ch. M.
Maarif that he had come to know of the order in the diary dated 10th August, 1980 on the date that it was written. The appellant has neither applied for condonation of delay in filing of restoration application nor shown any valid causes for condonation of delay. The restortion application was thus rightly dismissed by the learned Commissioner.
4. Another ground on which the present appeal is liable to be dismissed is that the view repeatedly taken by this Tribunal has been that no appeal lies against an order of the Commissioner passed under Standing Order 10-B. The latest decision of this Tribunal on this point I in the case of General Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Hari decided on 18th August, 1980.
5. Lastly it may be mentioned that even on merits the appellant has no case. In his own affidavit before the learned Commissioner, dated 10th March, 1979, the appellant has stated that his father, Gul Hasan, was employed as a Watchman in the respondent company. It has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Khuda Dad Khan v. National Construction Company that a watchman is not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders and hence the provisions of the Standing Orders are not applicable to watchmen.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.