DECISION This purports to be an .Appeal against the order of the learned Com--missioner, Workmen's Compensation, dated 23rd August, 1982, award--ing a sum of Rs. 15,000 as compensation to the respondents under the provisions of Standing Order 10-B on account of the death of workman Mohammad Mansha.
2. It is an admitted position that deceased Mohammad Mansha was an employee of the appellant corporation. He took medical leave from the appellants from 14th March, 1980 to 4th April, 1980. The leave was twice extended, once by six days from 5th April, 1980 to 11th April, 1980 and then from 11th April, 1980 to 18th April, 1980. On account of his sickness he took treatment from the Social Security Institution. The respondent, Mohammad Mansha, ultimately died on 24th August, 1980. Upto the time of his death,. It appears that he was taking treatment from the Social Security Institution as testified by Dr. Izharul Haq, Medical Officer, Dawood Cotton Mills Dispensary. In the meanwhile the appel--lants are said to have dismissed Mohammad Mansha from service, vide order, dated 6th July, 1980, on account of his prolonged absence and failure to attend his duties or to apply for extension of leave. After the death of Mohammad Mansha, his dependants filed a claim for compensa--tion under Standing Order 10-B to the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, who has passed the impugned order.
2. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Izharul Haq that Mohammad Mansha took treatment for one month, with effect from 13th March, 1980, at the Social Security Dispensary, Dawood Cotton Mills on the basis of B-2 form No. L D 208323, dated 13th March, 1980, and thereafter he was referred to the Landhi Hospital (Social Security Institution) by the Medi--cal Officer Incharge of the Social Security Dispensary, Dawood Cotton Mills. It appears that the deceased was under treatment at the Landi Hospital from 5-4-1980 upto the time of his death and had been granted leave by the doctor Incharge, Landi Hospital from 5th April, 1980 to 25th April, 1980. It is, thus, clear that the dismissal from service of the deceas--ed on 6th July, 1980, was during the period that the deceased was taking treatment in a Social Security Institution. His dismissal was invalid being in violation of the provisions of section 72 of the Provincial Em--ployees' Security ordinance, 1965. Subsection (1) of the said section reads as follows :- "72. (I) No employer shall dismiss, discharge or reduce or other--were punish an employee during the period in which the employee is in receipt of sickness benefit, maternity benefit, injury benefit or medical care."
Since the sole objection which the appellants have raised against the maintainability of the claim of the respondents for Group Insurance com--pensation is based on the ground that the deceased was dismissed vide Order, dated 6th July, 1980, the objection of the appellants must fail.
3. There is another ground on which the appeal is not entertainable by this Tribunal. It is contended by Mr. Khurshid Anwar the learned counsel for the appellants, that inasmuch as clause (5) of Standing Order 10-B provides that all claims of the workman or his heirs for recovery of money under clause (4) shall be settled in the same manner as is pro--vided for the determination and recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the various provisions of the Work--men's Compensation Act; in this behalf, including the right of appeal under section 30, would be applicable to claims for compensation under Standing Order 10-B. The learned counsel, however, was unable to cite any authority tending to show that there is a right of appeal to this Tribu--nal against that orders of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation made under Standing Order 10-B. This Tribunal, however, has been of the consistent view since the decision in the case of Re: Daily Mashriq v. Mst. Roshan Khatoon, decided on 23rd July, 1975 that no appeal lie to this Tribunal against the decision given by the Commissioner under Standing Order 10-B. This view was reiterated by this Tribunal in the recent case reported as Government of Sind v. Mst Zahra Begum (1981 PLC 490),
4. On either view of the matter, therefore, I find that the appeal is not maintainable and would, accordingly dismiss the same in limine.