This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by Mst. Zainab Bibi from an order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Multan on 7-9-1991 dismissing her application claiming an amount of Rs.30,000 as Group Insurance and Rs.2,666 as gratuity in respect of her husband namely, Rahim Bakhsh who died while in the service of respondent No. 1.
2. On 20-2-1991 the appellant applied to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for a payment of Rs.30,000 as group insurance and Rs.2,666 as gratuity in respect of Rahim Bakhsh, her deceased husband. She alleged that her husband was in the service of respondent No. 1 when he died on 6-9-1988 and, therefore, she was entitled to the payment of group insurance and gratuity as claimed by her. This application was opposed by respondent No. 1. It was contended that Rahim Bakhsh, deceased had never been in the employment of respondent No. 1. Certain preliminary objections were also raised.
3. During the pendency of the application respondent No. 1 moved an application before the Commissioner that before proceeding to adjudicate upon the application on merits the preliminary objections raised in the written statement may be disposed of in the first instance. The Commissioner allowed the miscellaneous application and after hearing the parties dismissed the main application holding that the same had not been presented by a competent person, that the same was not in the prescribed form and that proper fee had not been paid, vide 'his impugned order dated 7-9-1991. The appellant has assailed this order in this appeal.
4. I have heard the attorney of the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the record. I am afraid, the impugned order is unsustainable. It is not denied that the appellant is the widow of Rahim Bakhsh deceased. Therefore, she being a legal heir was quite competent to apply to the Commissioner for the claim preferred by her. The other two grounds that the application was not in the prescribed form and that proper fee had not been paid are merely defects of procedure and could not, under the law, constitute a valid basis for throwing out the claim. These defects could be rectified with the permission of the Commissioner at any stage. This position is not controverted by learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
5. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order set aside and the application is remanded to the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Multan for its decision on merits in accordance with law. The appellant shall .Be allowed to remove the procedural defects, if any, in the application.
6. The parties shall appear before the Commissioner on 15-11-1992.