DECISION ' Mr. S. Nasir Ali Shah Masoomi, Commissioner, for Workmen's Compensation, Sukkur Zone, Sukkur, announced an order on 22nd August, 1984 awarding compensation of Rs, 15,000 alongwith Rs, 200 as costs of the application. This order is impugned in this appeal.
2. The appeal was argued on bealf of the appellants by Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan. The facts are that one Abdul Kareem, a waterman of the Railway Station Ali Nawaz Ghoto was murdered on 10th June, 1981 at 17 hours within the premises of Railway Station during the duty hours.
' The father of the claimant claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, but the respondents refused to make payment of the same, hence he filed this application.
3. The appellants were served notice who contested the case by filing their reply statement through their Litigation Inspector, Mr. M. M. I. Mullick. They partially admitted the facts but denied that applicant was not on duty at the time of accident and he did not die within the premises of Railway Station.
4. The Commissioner framed two issues, whether the applicant was entitled for compensation as claimed, whether the application was not maintainable. The Commissioner gave affirmative reply to the first Issue and as regards the second Issue he said 'not pressed'. In appeal both the Issues were pressed. Ali Nawaz Ghoto, Railway Station is a small Railway Station and according to the F.
1. R., the dead body of the deceased was lying on the Railway track. The Station Master, according to the evidence of the father of the deceased was not present at the time of the incident. The collection of tickets and the keys of the station were with the deceased. The evidence of Abdul Majeed, the sweeper of the Railway Station is very important and the evidence divulges that the Station Master was not present at the Railway Station and Abdul Karim, the deceased was on duty at the time of murder and while he was attacked by the culprits he ran away towards his village situated near the Railway Station, but he could not succeed and was killed at the end of Railway Platform near Railway track. It may be noted that the quarter of the deceased was adjoining the Railway ,Station. As per duty roster of the Station Master he was supposed to perform duty from 8 hours to 20 hours with intermitant breaks and similar duty hours were fixed for the waterman.
5. Section 71-A of Railways Act, 1890, the employee was 24 hours employee of the Department because he was looking after the duty of Station Master who was absent from station and came back on 3rd day of the incident. Thus, Waterman was all important at the time of incident, and since the Station Master was not present his importance became more and he was supposed to be on duty. The contention of the appellant is, therefore, without any force.
6. As regards the maintainability of the application my attention is drawn to section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, but the learned counsel ignored the proviso in the said section and these provisions are as under :- "Provided further that the want of or any defect or irregularity in a notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of a claim : -
(a) If the claim is preferred in respect of the death of a workman resulting from an accident which occurred on the premises of the employer, or at any place where the workman at the time of the accident was working under the control of the employer or of any person employed by him, and the workman died on such premises or at such place, or on any premises belonging to the employer, or died without having left the vicinity of the premises or place where the accident occurred, or
(b) If the employer or any one of several employers or any person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured workman was employed had knowledge of the accidence from any other source at or about the time when it occurred.
' Provided further, that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been preferred, in due time as provided in this subsection, if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause."
7. Irrespective of the Notice, the claim is maintainable. My attention is also drawn to 1976 PLC 709, where the deceased died of heart attack near about the premises of the employer, he was given the compensation.
8. The result is that I maintain the order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and award the compensation of Rs, 15,000 and Rs, 200 as costs, as awarded by him and the father of the deceased, namely Muhammad Murad, the respondent herein will receive the amount.
9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.