' Worthy Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Sargodha Region (Mr. Mahboob Alam Shah), by an order passed on 23-10-1994, awarded an amount of Rs,42,000 as compensation to one Eid Gul son of Gul Zaman, found to have suffered disability, during his service with the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation, while working at their project (coal mine), at Makarwal, District Mianwali.
The Managing Director of the Makarwal Collieries, having his head office at 94-D/1, Gulberg-III, Lahore has preferred an appeal before this Tribunal, under section 30, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
2. Main plea of the appellant is that there is no evidence available on record if Eid Gul had lost his eye-sight on account of some accident, as to when did the accident, if any, occur what was the gravity of the injure and the quantum of loss, in terms of money, suffered by the worker. It is also contended that no notice, as required by section 10, had been issued by the worker to the employer, and the claim had not been preferred within three years of incidence of injury, as envisaged by subsection (1) of section 10. It is maintained by the learned counsel for the appellant that actually it is a family disease, as Eid Gul's younger brother Meena Gul also has a very weak eye-sight. Senior Medical Officer of the Corporation, it is pointed out, has deposed as a witness that Eid Gul had suffered impairment of his eyesight on account of some eye disease. It is, however, noteworthy that R.W. 2 Dr. Muhammad Khizer Hayat is not an Eye Specialist himself, although he states that Eid Gul had been referred to an Eye Specialist at Mianwali, as per docket Exh. R. 5, which document, however, makes mention of the Eye Specialist at Sargodha, the opinion being that an operation for cataract was needed. Exh. R. 7 furnishes proof of the fact that right eye was operated upon and his left eye was blind. He was recommended for some light job 'on surface', on humanitarian grounds. As per Exh. R. 4, he was earlier working as Coal Loader and was asked to serve as Road Worker to be engaged in repair of road, for one month, from 30-7-1978 to 29-8-1978.
Document Exh. R. 10 indicates that he had been working for some time as surface worker, and was redesignated as S. Worker, with effect from 13-2-1982. This was done on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Dr. Khizer Hayat as R.W. 2 states that as many as 1700/1800 persons work on the project at Malcarwal and he knows every one of them. This claim, however, seems to be ridiculous. It cannot be believed that he is aware of physical health or fitness of all of them. It appears that he is deposing against the worker, and in favour of the concern, being on the rolls of the establishment himself.
3. In the course of Eid Gul's own statement, made as P.W. 3, the Commissioner had himself recorded his observation to the effect that it was with difficulty that statement of Eid Gul was recorded, as he could neither here nor see properly. It has rightly been observed by the Commissioner, in his order dated 23-10-1994, under issue No, 2, that it was unbelievable that Eid Gul's eye-sight could deteriorate that rapidly in routine, as he had been employed in May, 1970, as per Exh. R. It and in December, 1975 his assignment had been changed from Coal Cutter to Tub-Loader (Exh. R. 2).
Document Exh. R. 3, dated 24-7-1979 furnishes proof of the fact that he had been found to be suffering from bilateral cataract, with extremely poor vision, almost unfit to do his duty, and for treatment he had been referred to the Eye Specialist, DHQ Hospital, Mianwali.
4. It thus seems certain that in an unusual way almost complete loss of eye-sight had occurred on account of some accident and not in normal course. According to the petitioner, and his witnesses, namely, Ghulam Rasool and Rustam Khan, P.Ws. 1 and 2, he had sustained an injury on account of fall of a stone on head, resulting in bleeding from his eyes and ears, which caused impairment of eye-sight and capability of hearing, bordering on incidence of disability in almost complete form.
To say that had the worker met an accident, as is alleged or claimed, he would have immediately reported the incident to the employer, would not be a correct representation of the factual position, reason being that these down-trodden poor workers keep themselves content always, assuming that it was all destined, as ordained by God Almighty, and they seldom resort to grumbling, either against the establishment or the employer, or anyone else. The appellant concern claims having been treating the worker on their own expense. He might have been hoping beyond hope that he would be cured of the ailment, one fine morning, although the disability had assumed almost an incurable form. That also might have prevented him from thinking in terms of laying a claim to the dues, which he was entitled to receive from the establishment under the law. Eid Gul, while making statement before the Commissioner, on 13-6-1994, did not give the time of the alleged accident, but, in his statement made in the Labour Court on 12-11-1991 (Exh. R. 15), he had said that 8/9 years there before a stone had hit his head, while he was working in a mine, and the same had very badly affected his eye-sight and hearing power, and that he did not have recourse to any Court, following the said incident. He was, however, referred to a Medical Board, on report given by which Board,.His services were dispensed with. Mr. Nazir Hussain, Labour Assistant, appeared as R.W. 1 before the Labour Court on 25-6-1991 (Exh. R. 16), and stated that the Board did not have any Eye Specialist as a member. Eid Gul had then approached the Labour Court for his reinstatement in service.
5. Exh. R. 14 shows that an amount of Rs,11,451.50 had been paid to Eid Gul as ' final dues', on his retirement, on medical ground, with effect from 18-9-1989. Learned counsel for the appellant has endeavoured to convince the Court that whatever was due was paid to the worker and nothing remained outstanding. Exh. R. 14, however, indicates that the amount aforesaid comprised the gratuity, the leave salary and the wages for the 'notice period'. It certainly did not include any money payable to the employee by way of compensation. If the establishment had been providing to him medical facilities for treatment of his eyes, that did not evidently absolve the establishment of its obligation to pay to him compensation for the disability that he had incurred in the course of his employment or during performance of his duty. Ostensibly, the claim to compensation was time-barred. It has, however, already been observed by me that members of the poor working class remain usually content with such acts and incidents, considering the same to be part of their life-scheme or destiny, as shaped by Allah Almighty. They are generally also ignorant of law and they also hesitate to incur fury or wrath of those in power, whether in Governmental set-up or any industrial or commercial establishment. The law itself, however, provides that the concerned Court or Authority has not to be that technical, in dealing with matters involving interests of poor workers.
Section 10, Workmen's Compensation Act does not exclude exceptions to the general rule. The Commissioner may entertain a claim to compensation, notwithstanding the fact that no notice has been given and the claim has not been preferred within time, if he is satisfied that worker's failure to do so was owing to a sufficient cause. If the employer has himself the knowledge of an accident, without the same being brought to his notice by the unfortunate victim, absence of the statutory notice or failure on the part of the worker in filing claim for compensation within the statutory period would constitute no bar to entertainment of such a claim. Delay in making a claim ought to be condoned by the Commissioner, or by the appellate Court, if circumstances of a particular case furnish a justification, on considerations of equity, justice and fair play. Compensation claim of a worker, who has fallen prey to a mishap or misfortune, should not ordinarily be declined.
6. It has been pronounced in PLD 1963 SC -482, Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali and others, that proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their rights. All technicalities have to be avoided, if it be not essential to comply with the same on grounds of public policy. Any system, which, by giving effect to the form and not to the substance, defeats substantial justice, must be treated as defective, deserving rejection and non-compliance to that extent. The ideal must always be a system that gives to every person his due.
7. I would also like to point out, at the end, that in his reply, the Managing Director, P.M.D.C., Lahore, filed before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sargodha, on 15-12-1991, in response to Eid Gul's application made in the prescribed form on 12-10-1991, no objection as regards the claim being time-barred, or having been preferred without requisite notice, had been raised. I would also refer, in particular, to the testimony of Nazir Hussain, Assistant (R.W. 1). He deposes that Eid Gul can hardly see and hear and he has reached this 'stage' during service but has not been paid anything on that count. He is a tall person, with 6-1/4 feet height, and as misfortune would have it, he has incurred almost absolute impairment of eye-sight and hearing capability, so much so that he cannot do any work and any service anywhere. He had withdrawn his grievance petition from the Labour Court giving up claim to reinstatement in service; he is no longer in service, and is wholly jobless. The compensation payable to him must at least be conceded to him. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has taken a sane and correct view of the matter, which is unexceptionable, and his verdict is affirmed. The appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.