DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order dated 20-5-1986, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Authority under Payment of Wages Act, West Division, Karachi, who had allowed the application of the respondent bearing No.88/81 under Section 10(2) to proceed further with regard to the claim of an amount of Rs.8,730 as gratuity.
2. Brief facts of the case of the respondents are that one Bakhtiar Khan, father of respondent No.1 and the husband of respondent No.2 respectively, was employed with the appellant establishment as 'Bhakey Wala' and had died on 19-12-1979 in the Social Security Hospital, Karachi and the appellant establishment had paid the provident fund and leave encashment dues of the deceased to the respondents on 26-12-1979, while the claim of Group Insurance was allowed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, West Division, Karachi on 4-2-1982. However, the amount of gratuity was not paid to the respondents, therefore, being aggrieved an application for the gratuity was submitted before the learned lower Court.
3. The appellant establishment resisted the petition before the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation on the 6 2-1979 they had already paid this amount to the respondents on 2 mount of alongwith the leave encashment fund after deducting an her, that Rs.2,100 as a loan which was taken by the deceased. Further that this amount of gratuity was claimed by the respondents in an application for the grant of Group Insurance, but, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had only allowed the claim of eyed. The Insurance and no order for the payment of gratuity was against order, respondents, thereafter instead of filing an appeal against to application had received the amount of gratuity, therefore, again and claiming the amount of gratuity and thereon an impugned order was barred by the principle of res judicata and also by virtue of Explanation to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and an application before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation be dismissed as not maintainable.
4. Memo was present on behalf of the appellant establishment. However, an application for adjournment of the hearing was sent by Mr. Ismat Puri, the learned representative for the appellant establishment on the ground of marriage ceremony of the notice and this application was rejected. I have very carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the impugned order. I find Nothing wrong in the impugned order and the learned Commissioner a for Workmen's Compensation is lawfully competent to proceed further with the case and to pass an order on merits in accordance with law. Unless the matter is finally decided by the learned Commissioner, the present appeal is not maintainable, hence it is accordingly rejected. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is directed to decide the matter within two months from the date of this order/ decision.