RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.--The respondent Mst. Allah Rakhi widow of Allah Rakha, Mst. Majidan Bibi widow of Boota Masih and Khurshid Masih son of Mand Masih, laid a claim before respondent No.4- Commissioner/Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Faisalabad, for the payment of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.30,000/- each as group insurance due to the death of their heirs vide Annexures 'A,B,C and D'
Mst. Allah Rakhi, respondent No.1, based her claim for the recovery of money on the death of his son Yaqoob who was a Sanitary worker with the petitioner. Mst. Majeedan Bibi asked for the recovery of the amount of insurance on the ground of death of her husband Boota who was a Sanitary worker.
Similarly, Khurshid Masih respondent No.3 laid a claim for the recovery of insurance money On account of death of his wife Mst. Zainab Bibi who was also employed as a Sanitary worker with the petitioner. The petitioner- Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad contested the claim of respondent by saying that the deceased in this case were governed by the statutory rules on the controversy and as such the provisions of Labour Laws could not be pressed into service. An objection was also raised that respondent No.4 had no jurisdiction to grant any relief to the contesting respondents. It was stated that the Insurance Department processed the case of the deceased whereby they sent a Cheque of Rs.7,500/- in each case which amount was paid to the contesting -respondents No.1 to 3 respectively under the orders of the Civil Court, Faisalabad. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to deposit a Rs.7,500/- more in each case on 24.2.90. This order dated 24.2.1990 was assailed by the present petitioner by filing an appeal which was heard and dismissed by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the present petitioner on the short ground that petitioner failed to annex a receipt showing the deposit of cash amount with the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner before it.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Cheque for the requisite amount was presented alongwith the grounds of appeal and as such their appeal could not be dismissed by the learned Tribunal oh the ground that the amount was not paid. The learned Law Officer supported the judgment dated 10.10.90 by saying that no writ can issue in aid of injustice and that no exception can be taken to the well reasoned judgment of the learned Tribunal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have read the record with care. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel inasmuch as presentation of a cheque alongwith the grounds of appeal was not a valid tender as required by section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. It was the duty of the petitioner to have deposited the disputed amount in cash and the challan form in support of the deposit should have been annexed alongwith the grounds of appeal with a view to meet the requirement of law on the controversy. Admittedly, this has not been done and as such the appeal of the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 10.10.90.
Even on merits it was laid down by the learned Tribunal that for the loss of a life a sum of Rs.15,000/- was to be paid to the respondents and definitely not Rs.7,500/- according to unamended law. in this case a sum of Rs.7,500/- was paid to the legal heirs of the deceased in each case and that the learned Commissioner was justified in directing the petitioner to pay the balance of Rs.7,500/- in each case. The learned counsel was unable to point out any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal. It is well settled that no writ can issue in aid of injustice. Reference may be made to the rule laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the cases of Federation of Pakistan Vs. Haji M. Saif ullah (P.L.D. 1989 S.C. 166), Nawab Syed Ronaq Ali Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner (P.L.D. 1973 S.C. 236) and Tufail Mohammad Vs. Raja M. Zia Ullah Khan fP.LJE). 1965 S.Fc. 269). Respectfully following the above noted cases, I refuse to interfere in the impugned judgment. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.