JUDGMENT This is an appeal under section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act against the order dated 1-6-1972 of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensa* tion. This appeal was pending in the High Court, but in view of the Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance XII of 1974, it was transferred to this Tribunal for disposal.
2. Hussain Masih, appellant was employed in the respondent-firm in 1961.
In 1965 he was employed for foreign service by the same firm at Bruna in Malaya. He stayed there for one year and then he was brought back to Pakistan, where he continued to work till 1968. On 1- 3-1968, an Agreement Exh. P. W. 1/1 was entered into between the appellant and the respondent and as a result thereof the appellant was sent to Thailand to work for the respon- dcnt-Company.
On 21-5-1969, when the appellant was working at site, he met with an accident. Thereafter, he was sent to the hospital where he stayed for about two months and was then sent back to Pakistan. On 29-12-1970 the appellant was examined by a Board of Doctors, who issued certificate regarding injuries received by him. The Board was of the opinion that the appellant had an old united fracture of both right and left leg bones. His left leg showed some angulation and mal union. His ability for hard manual labour had been reduced by 15%. Unfortunately this certificate was never proved. On 27-10-1970 the appellant filed an application under section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation regarding the injuries received by him. The learned Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it.
3. Aggrieved by the above order the appellant preferred this appeal.
4. Regarding .the point of jurisdiction section 21(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act is relevant. It reads as follows :-- "Where any matter is under this Act to be done by or before a Commissioner, the same shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and to any rules made hereunder, to be done by or before a Commissioner for the 1975 Hussain Masih v.
Socibta Anonima Elbctrificaziqne 139 (.Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal) local area in which the accident took place which resulted in the injury." In the instant case the accident took place in Thailand and, therefore, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that in view of clause Vll of Agreement Exh. P. W. 1/1, the learned Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the application. Clause Vll reads as follows:-- "Compensation.--Compensation shall be paid by the Company to the Employee in all cases of disability or injury, arising out of and sustained during the course of employment provided the employee signs a release in return for receiving such benefits. In all such cases, the amount shall be the same amount as would be owing Bangkok (Thailand) Nationals under the laws of Bangkok (Thailand) or be payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIH of 1923) as amended from time to time in Pakistan, whichever is more favourable to the Employee." The above clause does not confer jurisdiction on the learned Commissioner. It merely provides a method of calculating compensation which would either be payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act or what is permissible to Thailand Nationals under the laws of Bangkok (Thailand).
5. In view of the above the learned Commissioner rightly decided that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the appellant.
6. I also find some other peculiar features in the appellant's case which deserve adverse comments. In the first place the claim by the appellant was hopelessly time-barred in view of the clause Exh. R. W. 1/1 of the Agreement Exh. P. W. 1/1. The said clause reads as follows:-- ''Any complaints or representations should be made within one month of the emigrant's return to Pakistan and any complaint/representation received after the specified time limit will not be entertained by the Protector of Emigrants." In the present case the appellant returned to Pakistan after about 2 months on 21-5-68, when the accident took place. He filed the application on 27-10-1970, which is hopelessly time-barred as it was not filed within on month of his return to Pakistan. Secondly I find that no notice as required under section 10 of the Act was given by the appellant. This fact is amply proved by the statement of the appellant recorded before the Commissioner, wherein he categorically stated that he had not written any letter to the Branch Manager at Lahore regarding his compensation. Lastly I find that there is nothing on the record to show as to what was the actual injury received by the appellant in the accident because neither any doctor from the Board of Doctors was examined nor the Certificate dated 29^12-1970 was proved. In the result I find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.