DECISION ' This is an appeal impugning two orders passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, West Division, Karachi, dated 28-3- 1989 and 22-10-1989.
2. I have heard Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Mehmood Habibullah, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for the payment of amount of conveyance allowance totalling Rs,7,760.
The notice was sent by registered post to the appellant by the learned Commissioner on 11-1-1989 and on 25-1-1989 through Bailiff which was served upon one Mr. Jawed, who claimed to be owner/occupier of the appellant establishment. As the appellant failed to appear before the learned Commissioner the learned Commissioner decided the matter ex parte on 28-3-1989 allowing Rs,7,560 as compensation Rs,200 as cost to the respondent. On 10-8-1989, the appellant moved an application before the learned Commissioner for setting aside the above-mentioned ex parte order on the ground, that notice had not been served upon him. The application was rejected by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 22-10-1989.
4. It may be pointed that application was filed by Mr. Zahid before the learned Commissioner. He has also filed appeal in this Tribunal, while notice was served upon one Mr. Jawed. The appellant has produced two lease agreements which show that M/s. Sartaj Steel Works, which is located in Plot No,D-166/A was leased out to Mr. Zahid. On the direction of this Tribunal, Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch also produced a certificate issued by the Joint Director Labour, West Division, Karachi, dated 26-4-1980 and the Membership Certificate of the Chamber of Commerce and Industries, Karachi, which shows that M/s. Sartaj Steel Works, appellant establishment is located on Plot No,D-166/A.
However, the address in the application under section 10 before the learned Commissioner was shown as D-106/A, Site, Karachi. The notice thus sent on wrong address cannot prima facie be said to have been served on the appellant. These circumstances require enquiry by the learned Commissioner as to who was the owner/occupier of the appellant industry and whether Mr. Jawed was authorised person to receive the notice on behalf of the appellant. These points do not appear to have been considered by the learned Commissioner while dismissing the application vide impugned order dated 22-10-1989. As such the impugned order dated 22-10-1989 is set aside and the learned Commissioner is directed to allow the parties to lead evidence if they so desire with regards to points mentioned above and then decide afresh the application of the appellant dated 10-8-1989. The parties are directed to appear before the learned I Commissioner on 19-4-1990.