JUDGMENT This is an appeal against'the order dated 24-2-1975 of the learned Com* missioner for Workmen's Compensation, Lyallpur awarding compensation of Rs. 15,000 to Mst. Sakina Bibi, respondent.
2. Muhammad Anwar deceased, who was the husband of Mst. Sakina Bibi respondent, was an employee of Messrs Crescent Textile Mills Ltd., Lyallpur appellant. On 25-8-1974 ' the deceased died as a result of an accident during the course of his employment. The widow, Mst.
Sakina Bibi respondent, filed a claim for Rs. 15,000 before the learned Commissioner who accepted the same.
3. Aggrieved by the above order the appellant has preferred this appeal as already mentioned above.
4. The leamed counsel for the appellant contended that since the respon dent was also drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 165 under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, she was not entitled to any relief under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He relied on sections 73 and 81 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance. Section 73 reads as follows :-- ' "When a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Ordinance, he shall not be entitled to a similar benefit under any other law." Section 81 of the said Ordinance reads as follows :-- "Workmen's compensation and maternity benefit payable under the Compensation Act* 1923 (VHI 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 (W.P. Ord. XXXII), 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 in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance* cease to have effect."
5. It was* therefore, argued that since the respondent was getting compensation under the West Pakistan Emplbyees* Social Security Ordinance, the respondent was not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the benefit under the West Pakistan Employees* Social Security Ordinance is similar to benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Workmen's Compensation Act speaks of compensation for injury by accident, whereas the West Pakistan Employees* Social Security Ordinance speaks only of Maternity Benefit, Death Grant, Gratuity and 'Survivor's Pension. The two concepts are entirely different. Gratuity by its very connotation means a sort of bounty and not something which is acquired as a matter of right. Pension is also different from A compensation. It is a reward for the services rendered or things done by an employee for the employer for which he wishes to give some sort of compensa-l tion. But by no stretch of imagination gratuity and pension can be considered to be synonym or equivalent for compensation. Beneficiaries under the two enactments are different and so is the manner of raising funds for payment to beneficiaries.
7. In view of the above it cannot be said that the benefits provided by West Pakistan Employees* Social Security Ordinance are similar to the benefit provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Also the provisions in so far as they relate to compensation,, there is no inconsistency so as to be a bar by reasons'of section 81 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan in the case Mst. Lai Jan v. Silver Paper Tube Company, Karachi (1).
8. In view of the above I find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (1) PLD 1974 Kar. 140