DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation to the respondent.
2. The respondent was a godown keeper in the employment of the appellant. While he was said to be going to the godown from the Head Office of the appellant in a iikshaw on 27-2-1971 he met with an accident and sustained injuries. He was removed to the civil hospital. The appellant was informed about the accident. He was treated in the Civil Hospital for one day and was removed to Anklesaria Hospital where he remained for 20 days as indoor patient at the expense of the appellant. He remained on leave for four months with full \ pay and reported for duty on 1-7-1971. He was taken back on the job with the same pay and other allowances. On 6-12-1972 he was retired from service as he had attained the age of sixty. On 12-1-1973 he made an application to the appellant demanding compensation. The claim was forwarded to the Insurance Company as he was insured by the appellant but the Insurance Company refused to pay any compensation on the ground that the claim was time- barred. The appellant also did not pay any compensation and, therefore, an application under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was made to the Commissioner on 24-9-1973. 3.
The claim was resisted and it was pleaded that the application was time-barred having been made more than one year after the accident, that the respondent was not "workman" within the meaning of the Compensation Act and the accident did not arise in the course of the duty. 4.
Evidence was led by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Commissioner condoned the delay and came to the conclusion that the respondent was a workman within the meaning of Compensation Act and since the respondent suffered permanent disability on the basis of the medical certificate, he was awarded compensation. Aggrieved by this the present appeal had been filed.
5. The first ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner has condoned the delay without any sufficient cause. There is no force in this contention as the respondent after the leave having expired resumed his duty and was allowed to work. He further stated in his evidence that he had demanded the compensation from the appellant but he was told to wait till the claim was decided by the Insurance Company.
There is no word to the contrary. The respondent had remained under treatment for a period of one-and-half year and final disability certificate was issued on 2-4-1973. The evidence of the respondent was accepted by the learned Commissioner! . and it cannot be assailed in appeal as it is a question of fact. Ther view taken by the learned Commissioner is supported by the decision in the case of Saeed Ahmad v. N. W. R. (1), which had followed a decision of the Bombay High Court and another decision of Calcutta H'gh Court by Division Benches. In these cases also the workman after expiry of the leave was taken back in service. In the case decided by the Calcutta High Court even a period of ten years was condoned, lt was, however, urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the (1) AIR 1940 Lah. 227 period of four months during which the respondent was on leave should not be excluded in counting the period of limitation. I am unable to accept this contention. It was further urged that the Commissioner had relied upon the medical certificate issued on 4-6-1974. This certificate alone is not the only evidence but it is supported by evidence of the Doctor who had issued the certificate. There is nothing on record to assail the evidence of the Doctor. Moreover, to believe or disbelieve the evidence is a question of fact and cannot be gone into in appeal. 6. 854 * 1 A . PAKISTAN LABOUR CASES 19)5 It was next urged that the respondent was not a workman with- in the meaning of the Compensation Act. This contention is also without any force. Of course the respondent was a godown keeper but he stated in his evidence that he used to handle the case for the purpose of transportation and was also required to check and maintain the account. Consequently he was a workman within the meaning of Item No. XXVI of Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In this view I am supported by two decisions of the High Court viz Hashlm v. Saeeda Begum (1) and Abdul Sattar & Bros. v. Abdul Ghaffar, , decided on 1-3-1973. In both the cases it was held that a clerk who was employed in the godown was a workman within the meaniog of the aforesaid item of the Schedule.
7. Lastly it was urged that the incident did not arise in the course of the duty. In the first place this is a question of fact and cannot be assailed in appeal. Secondly, not only the respondent stated ini his evidence that the respondent was on duty when he met with thelD accident but the appellant clearly stated in the claim Exh. P-4 sent toJ Insurance Company that the accident took place while the respondent was on duty. The appellant is now estopped from taking a contrary plea.
8. In the result the appeal is dismissed. (1) 1963 PLC 141