1. ' The brief facts relating to the petition are that Muhammad Yameen' (respondent No,1) was employed with the Executive Engineer, Highways Division Thatta (petitioner herein) who was the person responsible for payment of his wages as a Driver of Road Roller in his establishment where more than 50 workmen were employed. Respondent No,1 was injured in an accident and after resumption of duty claimed a sum of Rs,10,500 towards the Compulsory Group Insurance under Standing Order 10-B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 which claim was denied and consequently he filed an application against the petitioner before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, GOR Colony Hyderabad (respondent No,2) for recovery of the said amount. The petitioner sought several adjournments to file reply statement which were allowed by the Commissioner and a final chance for filing the reply on 25-5-1985 was given to him. On the said date a representative of the petitioner again filed an application for adjournment which was rejected and the matter was adjourned for framing of issues. After framing of issues respondent No,1 filed as affidavit in ex parte proof. On 25-7-1985 a person by the name of Pervaz Shah claiming himself to be Assistant Engineer, Highway Sub- Division appeared but did not file any application and consequently the side of the petitioner was closed. On the basis of the arguments filed by the respondent No,1, after holding that he had jurisdiction to decide the claim of respondent No,1, the Commissioner awarded Rs,10,500 to him and directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount within 30 days for disbursement to respondent No,1. Petitioner filed an appeal against the Order of respondent No,2 before Labour Court No, VI Hyderabad (respondent No,3) which was dismissed on the ground that under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal was that of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and not of the Labour Court. Consequently the petitioner filed the present petition, inter alia, on the ground that respondent No,1, was a civil servant and purely a temporary employee of the Government of Sindh and, therefore, his remedy was to approach the Service Tribunal and not the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation for seeking relief under Standing Order 10.B.
2. ' The learned Additional Advocate-General contended that respondent No,1 was a civil servant and consequently the Service Tribunal and not the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was competent to grant the relief. The contention is not tenable for the following reason:- ' Section 2(b) of the Sindh Civil Servant Act, 1973, clearly excludes from the definition of a Civil Servant, a person who is a "Worker" or "workman" as defined in the Factories Act, 1974 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Under section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act "workman" means any person who is employed in the construction, repair or demolition of any road. Admittedly respondent No,1 was working as a Driver of a Road Roller which is used in the construction and repair of roads. Respondent No,1, therefore, comes within the definition of a workman given in the Workmen's Compensation Act and is excluded from the definition of a civil servant. His remedy, therefore, was under the ordinary laws relating to labour and not under the Sindh Service Tribunal, Act, 1973 which forum has been established exclusively for, redress of the grievance of the civil servants only. The application of the respondent No,1 for relief under Standing Order 10-B was. Therefore, competent before respondent No,2.
3. ' Mr. Mian Khan Malik Learned, Addl. A.-G. Next contended that Standing Order 10-B is not applicable to respondent No,2 and the petitioner's establishment. This contention is also devoid of any substance. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is incharge of an industrial establishment where 20 or more workmen are employed or were so employed on any day during the preceding 12 months of the accident.
4. ' Section 1(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
5. Ordinance, 1968 clearly states that nothing in the Ordinance shall apply to an industrial and commercial establishment carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct, or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein. The Additional Advocate-General has not been able to show no statutory rules relating to the availability of benefit in the nature of Standing Order 10-B. However, he still vehemently asserted that the employment of respondent No,1 by the petitioner is governed by statutory rules and he is not entitled to the benefit under Standing Order 10-B.
6. ' In the case of the Secretary, Irrigation Department Sindh v. Nasir Khan and others (1985 PLC 1060)
7. Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian as he then was (and now the Chief Justice of Pakistan) while dealing with the provisions of Payment of Wages Act and West Pakistan (Standing Orders)' Ordinance, 1968, observed as follows:- "It is an admitted position that there are no Government statutory rules dealing with the question of gratuity or the group insurance. In my view Simplicity the fact that there are certain statutory rules relating to disciplinary action etc. For the Government employees will not exclude the application of all the provisions of the Ordinance. The application of the Ordinance will be excluded only in respect of the matters for which statutory rules have been provided by the Government. Since there are no statutory rules relating to gratuity and group insurance, in my view, the provisions of the Ordinance relating to the above two items shall be applicable even to a Government employee falling within the definition of a workman."
8. ' The aforesaid view was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Project Director Ghotki (WAPDA) v. Commissioner Workmen Compensation and others (PLD 1992 SC 451).
9. ' Mr. Mian Khan Malik, learned Additional Advocate-General, further contended that respondent No,1 had filed the application against the Executive Engineer, Highways Division, -Thatta to whom he was subordinate instead of filing the application against the Province of Sindh who was his employer; his application before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation was bad in form, and therefore, not maintainable. In support of his arguments he relied upon PLD 1992 SC 451. The arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate-General cannot be accepted for the following reasons:-
(i) No such plea was raised by the petitioner before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation (respondent No,2) or in the appeal filed by the petitioner before Labour Court No .VI (respondent No,3).
(ii) The petitioner comes within the definition of employer given in section 2(c) of West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
(iii) The petitioner filed the appeal before the Labour Court No,VI, and Constitutional Petition before this Court in the name of "Executive Engineer" instead of filing the same in the name of Province of Sindh through Executive Engineer. It does not lie in his mouth to take such technical objection to deprive a poor Workman of the benefit available to him under Standing Order 10-B.
(iv) It is well-established that a beneficial or remedial statute promulgated for ameliorating the lot of working class must be construed to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief (PLD 1977 SC 197). West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 is one such statute which must be interpreted in favour of workman. The Courts should, therefore, not deprive the workman of his statutory benefits on account of any minor technical flaw in the proceedings of which the petitioner himself is also guilty. The rules of procedure are made to help advance the cause' of justice and not deprive a poor and illiterate workman of his benefits.
(v) It is interesting to note that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court cited by the Learned Additional Advocate-General (PLD 1992 SC 451) was a case in which the appeal was filed by "Project Director Ghotki (WAPDA)" which was the official designation or title of the applicant which is not a legal or natural person as argued by him.
10. Accordingly the petition has no merit and is dismissed with costs.
11. ' In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the decision to file this petition was taken without application of mind and without exercising prudence in spite of clear provisions of law and the judgments of the Superior Courts. The petition is patently mala tide and vexatious.
12. Consequently the person responsible for filing the petition shall also pay compensatory costs of Rs,5,000 to the respondent within two months.