SHAM S M EHM OOD M IRZA, J. This writ petition calls into question order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal as well as order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Commissioner).
2. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No.4 being widow of Muhammad Arif who was in the employment of respondent No.3 filed a claim before the Commissioner seeking the payment of group insurance amounting to Rs.200,000/- petitioner being the insurance company issued the insurance policy at the request of respondent No.3 for insurance of its employees on 20.03.2009 with each employee being assured a sum of Rs.200,000/- payable on death. The husband of respondent No.4 passed away on 14.06.2010. Respondent No.3 filed a claim before the petitioner which was repudiated on the ground that the husband of respondent No.4 was not in the active employment of respondent No.3 since 15.11.2009 and as such the claim did not fulfill the requirement of clause 4 of the insurance policy.
3. In the petition filed by respondent No.4 before the Commissioner, the petitioner was also impleaded as a respondent along with respondent No.3. The petitioner joined the proceedings by filing its reply in which it was stated that respondent No.4 has no cause of action against the petitioner and that the husband of the petitioner was also not in the active employment of respondent No.3 at the time of his death. The petitioner, however, after filing the reply absented from the proceedings before the Commissioner.
4. The Commissioner after recording the evidence of respondents No.3 and No.4 allowed the application of respondent No.4 on 07.02.2014 with a direction to the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.200,000/- in the court for onward disbursement to respondent No.4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner filed an appeal before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed on 03.04.2018. The order of the Commissioner was, however, modified to the extent that respondent No. 4 was held entitled to receive the amount of group insurance from the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, individually and collectively.
5. Learned counsel submits that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction over the petitioner and that any claim against the petitioner could only be filed under section 122 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. It is furthermore submitted that the husband of respondent No.4 was not in active employment of respondent No.3 and as such the findings by the Commissioner as well as Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal are result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence.
6. Respondent No.4 has been proceeded against ex-parte on 05.10.2021 as she did not enter appearance despite publication of notice in the newspaper.
7. The petitioner while filing its reply before the Commissioner did not take any objection regarding the jurisdiction. Be that as it may, it is evident from the record that Muhammad Akbar Nazim, General Manager of respondent No.3, entered in the witness box as RW-1 and stated that all the employees including the husband of respondent No.4 were insured with the petitioner and that premium amount of Rs.156,408/- was also paid to it through cross cheque. The petitioner did not cross-examine the said witness. It is also apparent from the record that the husband of respondent No.4 passed away on 14.06.2010 when the insurance policy was in existence. The petitioner did not furnished any proof in evidence although the onus of proof was on it on issues Nos.3, 4 and 5. It is noted that the petitioner in its reply admitted that the husband of respondent No.4 was insured by it under group insurance.
8. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was right in its observation that the claim for compensation under the Act could only be decided by the Commissioner and that under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 only a policy holder could approach the tribunal created thereunder.
9. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders impugned hereunder.
This writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.