' By this judgment, I shall be disposing of as many as five Appeals (Nos. GA-2 to 6 of 1995), having been preferred on 2-5-1995 by the Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala, the respondent all being widow of sweepers etc., who had been serving the Corporation during their life-time. Facts and legal issues involved are identical.
2. Claim was laid as regards certain unpaid dues, which the deceased employees were entitled to get from the employer, on account of Group Insurance etc. Petitions were filed under the relevant provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, against the Municipal Corporation, in the Court of the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Gujranwala, and the same were accepted by the orders announced on 26-2-1995.
The Corporation came up in appeal to this forum. The objections raised by the Corporations against the validity of these claims were over-ruled by the Court below. I have gone through these orders and given my anxious consideration to the cases. There can be no cavil with the proposition that the municipal corporation, especially in regard to the field, in which the late employees were employed, namely, water supply, cleaning of streets, disposal of dirty water, running of sewerage channels etc., is to be regarded as an industrial establishment, and the provisions of the Factories Act, 1934 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 would be applicable, and such employees or their legal heirs would be entitled to approach the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for recovery of the dues. The deceased persons would be treated as workmen, and there being no record available with the Corporation in proof of the plea that they had been daily-wagers or temporary workers, there will be no escape from the assumption that they were permanent workers, especially from the date of their regularization with effect from 24-3-1987.
3. I would endorse the observations of the learned lower Court made to the effect that if the employer omits to make such an employee as a permanent workman, despite his having rendered the requisite qualifying service, as provided under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the workers should not be made to suffer for the mischief or the manipulation of the employer, and, in all fairness, they should not be deprived of their service benefits, privileges and rights guaranteed under the law. For the minor technical lapse on the part of the claimant, in having approached the concerned forum with some delay, he ought not to be divested of the dues. We all must have sympathy with these poor members of the labour class, their widows and dependants, and must be prepared to accommodate and help them in a magnanimous and liberal way.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to furnish satisfactory answers of the questions put to him as regards alleged in-validity of the claims, as also about soundness of his contentions raised in appeal. I have really not been able to find fault with the impugned orders, which are upheld. The appeals are resultantly dismissed, with no order as to costs.