DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. The appellant was in the employment of the respondent. He received injuries on account of accident arising out of and during the course of employment on 31st of December, 1971. He obtained a medical certificate dated 29th of May, 1972 showing that the injuries had resulted in a permanent partial disability assessing the earning capacity to the extent of 50 %. A notice dated 5th July, 1971 was served by the appellant claiming Rs. 6,500 according to the Schedule then applicable. Subsequently the matter was taken to the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compen3ation Act and the same amount was claimed. The learned Commissioner after recording the evidence allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 4,200 in addition to other expenses. It may be mentioned here that the Schedule was amended on 13th of April, 1972 whereby the compensation to be allowed in such case was increased to Rs. 10,000. On that account an application dated 4th July, 1974 was made for the amendment of the claim but on this application no order was passed, Subsequently the compensation was awarded as already indicated. Since the compensation was less than the one admissible under the amended Schedule, the appellant felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal.
3. Thus the only point which requires consideration is whether the amendment brought out in the Schedule subsequent to the accident can be given retrospective effect. The learned counsel fur the appellant urged that although the accident had arisen prior to the amendment of the Schedule but the application to the Labour Court was made after the amendment and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to claim compensation at the new rate. I find no force in this contention. It is a settled principle of law needing Tao authority that when substantive law has been altered after the cause of action has arisen rights of the party have to be decided according to law before alteration unless new statute clearly varied such rights. In other words retrospective effect cannot be given and vested right cannot be affected without express provision to that effect. There is nothing in the amending statute to allow an inference that the statute gave retrospective effect to claim which already accrued. In this connection the learned counsel for the respondent sought in aid an authority in the case of Kohinoor Mercantile Corporation v. Hazera Khatoon and another (PLD 1963 Dacca 228). In that case the death had occurred before the amending Act but the claim was sought to be enforced on the basis of the amending Act. The claim was rejected and the compensation was awarded on the basis of the old Schedule which was in force at the time of the accident. The authority covers the present case.