' In this appeal the decision, dated 8th December, 1980 has been challenged whereby the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation granted an amount of Rs, 12,000 in lieu of group insurance to the respondent on account of the death of his son who was employed with the appellant. Admittedly the deceased had not been got insured under the group insurance policy by the appellant. The case of the appellant is that the deceased was not a permanent workman and thus was not entitled to be insured under the group insurance policy and for the reason his heir was not entitled to any compensation in lieu of group insurance. The petition was opposed and the learned Commissioner framed following issues :-
(i) Whether the son of the petitioner was not a permanent workman and whether he was not entitled to amount of group insurance on this account ? O. P. R.
(ii) Relief.
' The respondent appeared as his own witness in support of his application and stated that the deceased Nazir Ahmed was employed with the appellant for more than one year, that he suffered from fever and was got admitted to the Nishtar Hospital by the Management where he died. The witness was not cross-examined. On behalf of the appellant one witness namely Khurshid Ahmed, Assistant Accountant was examined who deposed that Nazir Ahmed was employed as substitute vide Order R. 1, dated 3rd November, 1977 and died on 21st October, 1978. He further stated that he worked for 159 days. In cross-examination he said that he had not brought Pay Register of the deceased. He showed his ignorance if record of attendance and leave was maintained in the time office. He also stated that he did not bring the list of any Badlies in which the name of Nazir Ahmed may have been entered. He admitted that the appointment letter R-1 did neither bear the thumb- impression or the signatures of the deceased. In appeal the appellant was allowed to bring a register to show that the deceased was only a Badli. In register brought by the appellant the deceased is shown to have worked for 14 days in November, 1977, 15 days in December, 1977, 11 days in January, 1978, 14 days in February, 1978, 17 days in March, 1978, 25 days in April, 1978, 21 days in May, 1978, 11 days. In June, 1978, 14 days in July, 1978, 11 days in August, 1978 and 6 days in September, 1978, totalling 159 days. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the total period of sery ice falls short of 183 days the respondent was not a permanent workman. Pay Register has not been brought to show as to for how many days the deceased had received the pay. This is very strange that in every month deceased worked as Badli for some days and the whole month. A Badli is a substitute for a permanent workman and service in the leave vacancy. It has not been shown which permanent workman was on leave or absent in whose place the appellant was employed. This is believable that every month for 14 days to 25 days a permanent workman went on leave and the deceased was appointed in his place. R-1 contradicts the entries of the register brought by the appellant. In this document it is not mentioned that the deceased was employed as a Badli, or a substitute. If he had been employed as substitute he would have been mentioned as such in R-1. No order of termination of his service in the months of November, December, 1977 and January to September, 1978 have been brought on the record. If he was Badli and appointed and removed in the above-mentioned months, the orders of his termination and the orders of the resumption of permanent employee in whose place he had been appointed had been brought on the record. The absence of such orders of removal of the deceased and resumption of duty of the permanent employee in whose place the deceased was appointed would show that no such document exists and ever came into existence. The statement of Khurshid Ahmed who did not bring the payment register was not sufficient to rebut the statement of Kamal Din P. W.
1. The record was with the appellant, therefore, non-production of the relevant record would raise an irresistible presumption that if it had been produced it would have disproved the case of the appellant.
2. As a result of the observation made above I conclude the learned Commissioner was justified in granting Rs, 12,000 to the respondent in lieu of group insurance of the deceased. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.