DECISION ' This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order of learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad whereby he awarded Rs,21,000 as compensation to, the respondent No, 1.
2. I have heard Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the appellants. Respondent was called absent.
3. Admittedly the respondent was workman working with the appellants and during the course of his employment he received injury and his four fingers of right hand were cut down. He was declared partially disabled. The main contention of Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq is that as the workman is insured under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 and was getting pension thereunder, he could not claim any compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act in view of sections 73 and 81 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance). Similar issue had come for consideration before this Tribunal in Appeal No, WCH 3 of 1990. This Tribunal after discussing the various provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and the Ordinance and case-law made following observations which have been quoted by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation as under:- "In order to appreciate the inconsistency similarity of provisions/benefits under the two enactments in this particular case, let us see what benefits are offered under these enactments. In cases of employment injury where the applicant suffers from any reduction/loss of earning capacity, the injured person, under the' provisions of section 39 of the Ordinance and Regulation No, 20 of Provincial Employees Social Security (Benefits) Regulations, 1967, is entitled to claim injury benefits at certain percentage of daily rate of wages of injured person for the period not more than one hundred and eighty days after which if the incapacitation continues he shall be entitled to disablement pension etc. Which is discussed later herein. The Act, in the same circumstances allows under its section 4-D and Schedule IV, column IV, half monthly payment of varying amounts during period of disablement, or a period of one year from the date of injury whichever period is less and in case of chronic lung disease up to 5 years' period or less if the disease ceases earlier. It will be appreciated that until the injury employment has resulted in certain permanent disablement both enactments extend benefits of periodical payments which may differ in magnitude but are essentially similar in nature and form and even purpose. Therefore the benefits of half monthly payments and relevant provisions i,e, section 4-D are certainly similar to these under the Ordinance--section 39 and Regulation No, 20 made thereunder, and therefore inconsistent and incompatible if applied simultaneously. The said provisions of the Act shall therefore give away to the corresponding provisions of the Ordinance.
' After the injury benefit is of maximum period of one hundred and eighty days, if the incapacitation prevails. The Ordinance provides for payment of disablement benefits of various nature. Initially, disablement pension is granted under section 40 of the Ordinance which continues till the disablement continues and ceases to be paid when the disablement ceases. But in case the pension is paid for five years then it shall be paid for life. Therefore this provision is an extension of provisions in respect of injury benefit, and the benefit continues for life if paid for five years whether or not the condition and extent of disablement has improved or deteriorated further. Another feature of this benefit is that pension is made in monthly payments which is corresponding to half monthly payments under the Act. Yet another, and in my humble opinion a very important feature of this benefit is that beneficiary in order to be benefited by the pension shall have to live longer so as to get more instalments. Consider a situation when the applicant dies within five months of enjoying the pension. He then would have received very meagre amount in comparison to the lump sum amount he would have received under the Act. There are other differences also. The Ordinance classifies disablements on the basis of percentages. The disablement falling below twenty percentage is treated as 'minor', that falling between twenty-one per cent. And sixty-six per cent. Is treated as 'partial' and it is total when it is in excess of sixty per cent. The disablement pension is allowed in cases of partial or total disablement and not in case of 'minor' disabilities in which case pension gratuity at certain rates in lump sum is allowed under section 41 of the Ordinance and Regulations Nos, 22, 22(i) and 22(ii) of the quoted Regulations. Even minor disabilities are not treated the same as there is no cash benefit under the quoted provisions for disability to the extent and up to five per cent.
' On the other hand the Act provides for a lump sum amount for permanent disabilities under section 4-B and at the rates mentioned in Schedule I thereof without any classification whatsoever in respect of permanent disabilities. A comparison between the relevant provisions and benefits shows that except the benefit of disablement gratuity' available under the Ordinance for minor injury from the extent of six per cent. To twenty per cent. Other benefits of pension are totally different from the lump sum compensation payable under the Act. Apart from the differences between the two discussed earlier they are dissimilar in other respects also. One is that the benefit of pension looks after reduction in earning capacity of injured person on continued basis while the benefit of compensation provides immediate relief and to cushion the shock received by injured person. Secondly there is certainty that injured will enjoy the compensation because he receives it in whole immediately, while the pension does not provide this benefit to injured as it may terminate before period of five years and then again he may not live longer to enjoy equal or more amount by way of pension than amount of compensation.
' From these I conclude that the two benefits are different. There does not remain any inconsistency in respect of benefits/provisions regarding partial and total disabilities because the injured is to receive pension from the Social Security Institute in monthly payments and the compensation is paid by employer himself. In my humble opinion there is no element of incompatibility to deprive the worker from claiming compensation because as discussed earlier the two benefits are different in form and nature. It is therefore my well-considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to lump sum payment of compensation under the Act also."
4. In the instant case admittedly the respondent is getting Rs,350 per month as pension and he is awarded Rs,21,000 as compensation by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.
For the reasons discussed in the earlier decision of this Tribunal I am inclined to hold that two benefits allowed to the respondent are not inconsistent or incompatible so that he may be deprived of any of the benefits.
5 . The appeal is dismissed.