DECISION These are two appeals under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner allowing compensation to the respondents.
2. The respondents were in the employment of the appellant and had sustained injuries during the course of employment.
They obtained certificates and filed their claim before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The claim was resisted. One of the grounds taken was that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims in view of the provisions of West Pakistan Employees'
Social Security Ordinance. The various objections taken by the appellant were rejected and compensation was awarded. Aggrieved by this the present appeals have been filed,
3. The only ground taken before me is that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act was barred by virtue of West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The Commissioner had relied upon the decision of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan in the case of Mst. Lai Jan v. Messrs Silver Paper Tube Co., Karachi (1) in holding that the jurisdiction was not barred and the claim could still be entertained despite the provisions of West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance. I have gone through this authority and I am of the view that this authority is clearly distinguishable as that was a case where death had occured and it was held that the death grant contemplated by the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance was not covered by the compensation which was granted under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In the present case it is not a case of death or the grant thereby but it is a case of simple injury having sustained during the course of employment. Consequently these appeals have to be decided on their own facts.
4. The main controversy is centered around section 81 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, which reads as under;-- *'81.
Supersession of certain laws etc.--Workmen's Compensation and maternity benefit payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIH of 1923), the Employers' Liability Act, 1938 (XXIV of 1938), the Mines Maternity Benefit Act, 1941 (XIX of 1941), the West Pakistan Maternity Benefit Ordinance, 1958 (West Pakistan Ordinance XXXII of 1958), or under any other law shall not be payable in respect of any employment on or after the appointed day in respect of such employment and the enactments and laws aforesaid shall, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, cease to have effect."
5. In this connection I would like to refer to the proposition laid down by his Lordship in the aforesaid authority, which reads as under i-- "On a reading of section 81 of the Ordinance, I must confess that the provision is not happily worded, although it would appear that the provision is made barring the grant of any compensation in such cases where the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act are inconsistent with the provisions of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance. Although no particular provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act have been repealed by the Social Security Ordinance, all the same by such an implication it has to be seen whether any of the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act are in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of Compensation Act shall cease to have effect and be deemed to have been repealed. For the purposes of coming to the conclusions on the point of enquiry it has first to be seen whether the object of the two enactments are inconsistent or dissimilar or similar. If the objects are different, the inconsistency cannot be inferred, but if the objects are the same and the process for the achievement of the object may be dissimilar; that by itself will result in inconsistency. In such context I would first briefly refer to the purposes of the two enactments. The preamble to the Workmen's Compensation Act reads that it is an enactment to provide for the payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident. On the other hand West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance in the preamble states that the object is to provide benefit (1) PLD 1974 Kar. 140 to certain employees or their dependents in the event of sickness, maternity, employment injury or death and for matters ancillary thereto."
6. Taking advantage of this proposition I would now like to refer to the various provisions of the two enactments. There can be no doubt that preamble very briefly sets forth the object which an enactment seeks to accomplish, and is a part of the statute and is in the nature of a recital of the facts operative on the mind of the law-giver in proceeding to enact and furnishes the key to its understanding. The preamble by itself cannot either restrict or extend the enacting part, where language and the object and scope of the Act are not open to doubt. Nothing can justify a departure from the plain meaning of the language of the Act. It is only when the words are fairly open to more than one sense that the question arises as to what was the true intention of the Legislature. In case there is no ambiguity of language even the declared intention of the framers of the Act become irrelevant for construing the Act so it is imperative that the intention of the Legislature has to be ascertained from the language it has preferred in the Act.
7. Taking up the provisions of Workmens* Compensation Act, the terms 'partial disablement* and 'total disablement* have been defined as under :-- " 'Partial disablement* means, where the disablement is of a temporary nature, such disablement as reduces the earning capacity of a workman in any employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident resulting in the disablement, and, where the disablement is of a permanent nature, such disablement as reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time: provided that every injury specified in Schedule I shall be deemed to Jesuit in permanent partial disablement. Total disablement' means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement.** Section 3 fixes the liability for compensation on the employer in case of personal injury to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Section 4 provides the amount of compensation which has to be awarded. Section 5 provides the method of calculating the wages. Section 19 provides the reference to the Commissioner for settlement of the question as to the nature of accident or disablement and the compensation to be awarded. Procedure for settling the question has also been laid down by the succeeding sections. Section 30 provides the appeal to the Tribunal against the decision of the Commissioner.
8. Taking up the provisions of West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, disablement has been defined by section 2(7), which reads as under: " 'Disablement* means a condition caused by an employment injury which, as certified by a medical practitioner authorised for the purpose as provided in the regulations, has permanently reduced or is likely to reduce permanently a secured person's earning capacity, and disablement shall be 'minor' where the loss of earning capacity is less than twenty per centum, 'partial' where the loss of earning capacity ranges from twenty-one per centum to sixty-six per centum and 'total' where the loss of earning capacity is in excess of sixty-six per centum.'* A special fund is created to which the employer is required to make contribution. A Government Body is constituted in which the general direction and superintendence of the affairs of the Institution are vested. Chapter 5 deals with the benefits which are allowed to the workers in case of sickness, maternity, death, injury and disablement.
Sections 40 and 41 are relevant for the purpose of the present cases. Section 40 lays down that a secured person who sustained 'total' or 'partial* disablement shall be entitled to receive 'disablement pension* according to the degree of disablement determined from time to time at such rates for different degrees of disablement. Section 41 provides 'disablement gratuity' for sustaining 'minor disablement*. The rates are for different degrees or disablement as may be fixed by the Government by notification in consultation with the Institution. It is also laid down that where a person receiving disablement pension ceases to suffer from total or partial disablement but continues to suffer from minor disablement he shall, on termination of his disablement pension, be entitled to disablement gratuity. Procedure has also been laid down for settling the various questions regarding the injury, disablement and the amount which is payable. These questions have to be referred to the Institution and an appeal against the decision of the Institution lies to the Social Security Court and a second appeal lies to the High Court on a question of law. Section 57 clearly lays down that the question or dispute relating to any benefit and the amount and the duration thereof, besides others, shall be decided by the Institution in such manner and within such time as the regulation may provide. Thus jurisdiction of the Social Security Institution with regards to this matter is exclusive.
9. From the comparison of the various provisions of the two enactments it is plain enough that so far as the present matters are concerned, both of them deal with the same matter with a different procedure, before a different authority and different amount of benefit or compensation which has to be awarded in such cases. Apparently the provisions of two enactments are inconsistent with each other and, therefore, the remedy available under the Workmen's Compensation Act must give way to the remedy provided by the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance.
10. Sometimes confusion is made by the use of the words compensation and 'pension* but the purpose and object of the two benefits is the same and, therefore it is immaterial if different words are used m two enactments. It was^ however, urged on behalf of the respondent that under the Workmen'sl Compensation Act, the compensation was awarded for 1he loss of earning canacitv whereas no such provision was made m the Social Security Ordinance and, therefore, two enactments did not deal with the same or JmTr obiect.
There is no force in this contention as it seems that the l^fned counsel had conveniently ignored the definitions of the term disable- of different degrees as laid down by the two enactments, which have already^ been reproduced. Recalling the definition of 'partial disablement as laid down by Workmen's Compensation Act it means such disablement as! reduces the earning capacity of a workman. Similarly disablement as) defined bv the Social Security Ordinance says that it reduces or is likely to] reduce a secured person's earning capacity. Thus in both cases it is the loss' of earning capacity for which compensation or the benefits, as the case may1 e have been allowed.
It is an admitted position that the respondents hadL approached the Social Security Court and had obtained the benefits provide^ under that enactment. It will, therefore, be anomalous if for the same injury or loss of earning capacity he should be allowed the benefits provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act as well.
11. Since in my humble opinion the two enactments deal with the same matters and provide relief for the same object the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act is barred by virtue of section 81 of the West Pakistan Employees* Social Security Ordinance, 1965. l2. In the result I allow the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.