' This appeal is directed against the order, dated 19th October, 1983 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, dismissing the appellant's application filed under Standing Orders 10-B and 12 (8) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, read with section 8 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
2. The facts briefly stated are that Nazar Muhammad a permanent workman employed with the respondents, died a natural death on 2nd January, 1980, during the course of his employment. His legal heir/ dependent appellant, Ikramuddin claimed the amount of Rs, 15,000 towards Group Insurance and Rs, 17,000 towards Gratuity of the deceased from the respondents but he was not paid. He, therefore, filed the application for the recovery of the above amounts before the learned Commissioner under Standing Orders 10-B and 12 (8) read with section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The respondents resisted the application on the grounds that the appellant was not entitled to a claim and that the application was not legally maintainable. The learned Commissioner finding that the respondents were establishment being carried by and under the authority of the Federal Government having its own Statutory Rules of Service Conduct and Discipline applicable to the workmen employed in it, held that the Standing Orders were not applicable to the case of the appellant by virtue of proviso to clause (c), subsection (4) of section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance and dismissed the application being not maintainable.
Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has come in this appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi the learned Advocate for the appellant. The short question that would arise is, as to whether the appeal is maintainable under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act has made provision for the appeals against certain orders passed under the Act and not against the orders under a different Statute as is the case in the instant appeal as the order appealed against were passed under the Standing Orders 10-B and 12 (8) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Therefore, the operation of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be extended to the instant case. This view was held by this Tribunal in the case of Daily Mashriq Karachi v. Mst. Rehmat Khatoon Appeal No, W. C. K. 40/75 decided on 23rd July, 1975. This view was followed by this Tribunal in its subsequent decision in the case of Messrs Tanveer Textile Mills Ltd. Karachi v. Mst.
Ameena (1), wherein it was observed "it is not necessary to deal with the objections raised on behalf of the appellant as in my view the order awarding compensation is not appealable for the reason that it was passed under Standing Order 10-B of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and not under Workmen's Compensation Act as already held by me in another case Reference Daily Mashriq v. Rehmat Khatoon Appeal No, W. C. K. 40/75 decided on 23rd July, 1975. Detailed reasons have already been given in that case and it is not necessary to reproduce here." This view was adopted by this Tribunal in the case of Messrs Olympia Spinning Mills Ltd. Karachi v. Syed Shah (2), wherein my learned predecessor observed as follows :- "Mr. S. M. Kohistani, on behalf of the respondent, however, raised a fatal objection as to the maintainability of the present appeal. He contended that no appeal lies to this Tribunal against a decision of the learned Commissioner under Standing Order 10-B. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision by this Tribunal v. Hari Son of Mawa, decided on 18th August, 1980, wherein it was observed as follows :- 'It may finally be pointed out that this Tribunal has repeatedly held that no appeal lies against a decision given by the Commissioner under Standing Order 10-B, since the matters in respect of which appeal can be preferred are limited to those specified in subsection (1) of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The earliest decision to this effect was given by this Tribunal in the case of Reference Daily ,Mashriq v. Mst. Rehmat Khatoon, decided on 23rd July, 1975. The said decision was followed in the cases of Tanveer Text Mills v. Mst. Ameena 1976 PLC 92 and Rice Export Corporation v. Raees Bibi, decided on 7th March, 1977. I am in respectful agreement with this view.'
' The decision in the case of General Tyre was followed in the recent case of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation v. Mst. Nawab Bibi, decided on 25th November, 1980. It has thus, been the consistent view of this Tribunal that no appeal lies against the decision of the learned Commissioner under Standing Order 10-B. The appeal accordingly is dismissed as being not maintainable."
4. The same view was adopted in the subsequent decisions of this
5. (1) 1976 PLC 92 (2) 1981 PLC 685 ' Tribunal in the cases of Sher Mat Khan v. Sabina Cotton Mills Karachi, (1), and Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Muhammad Siddiq (2). This Tribunal, therefore, has been of consistent view since the decision of Daily Mashriq v. Rehmat Khatoon, decided on 23rd July, 1975, that no appeal lies to this Tribunal against the decision given by the Commissioner under Standing Order 10-B as section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act has made provisions of the appeals against certain orders passed under the Act and not against the orders passed under different Statute and, therefore, I am of the clear view that no appeal lies against the orders of the learned Commissioner under Standing Order 10-B and Standing Order 12 (8) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
5. The result is that the appeal is dismissed in limine.
(1) 1982 PLC 603
(2) 1983 PLC 763