' These are two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents and they relate to the claim of group insurance and gratuity which have been allowed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Karachi, in respect of the group insurance and gratuity in respect of the husband of respondent No, 2, namely, Ahmed son of Bilal, who was alleged to be an employee of the petitioner by orders dated 8th March, 1984,
2. The relevant facts are that respondent No, 2 filed two applications under Standing Order 12 (8) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and under Standing Order No, 10 B of the same Ordinance.
' It was alleged that Ahmed, the husband of respondent No, 2 had expired on 9th November, 1980 who was employed with the petitioner since 1947 and the last wages were Rs, 30 per day and therefore Rs, 21,000 as gratuity was liable to be paid. Group Insurance amount was claimed at Rs, 15,000 because the wage of Ahmed was between Rs, 500 and which were lost was carried out according to recognised principles applicable to contracts of Marine carriage and the practice in marine insurance. "Therefore every case has to be scrutinised on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
12. In the present two petitions before me I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had proceeded in a correct manner and was justified in treating the documents and the identity cards produced before him as sufficient evidence to sustain the claim of respondent No, 2.
13. Petitioner's counsel had submitted that the affidavit of Mst. Bechai was not proper and that the photo copies should not have been admitted. These are mere formal pleas taken by the learned counsel. It was competent for the respondent No, 1 to take into consideration the photo copy of the two identity cards as well as the affidavit of Mst. Bachai which were uncontroverted and were also supported by the admitted letters of the petitioner giving compensation to Ahmed in 1959.
Moreover, more technicalities cannot be allowed to defeat the orders which have been passed by Tribunals of competent jurisdiction.
' This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal when dealing with writ petitions and it has been held by the Supreme Court in PLD 1974 SC 139 and PLD 1981 SC 246 that High Court in use of its writ jurisdiction is concerned only with the question whether tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction or not and that mere fact that decision of a tribunal is incorrect does not render the decision as without lawful authority. It had been also observed that a tribunal which acts within jurisdiction is competent to decide a matter rightly or wrongly.
14. Consequently I do not find the respondent No, 1 having acted in the two matters in any wrong manner and, therefore, these two petitions are dismissed.