DECISION ' This Is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court allowing a sum to Rs, 20,000 to the respondent under the Group Insurance Scheme.
2. The respondent was in the permanent employment of the appellant. During the course of his employment he fell ill and on 23rd February, 1976 be was declared totally disabled from performing his duties by the Medical Officer as he was said to be suffering from Asthma. The respondent claimed a sum of Re. 15,000 by an application dated 22nd April, 1976 under the Group Insurance Scheme but it was refused on the ground that the provisions of Standing Order 10-B of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance was not applicable.
After service of grievance notice the respondent approached the Labour Court under section 25-A, I. R.
0. Claiming Rs, 20,000 under the Group Insurance Scheme. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable and the application under section 25-A, I. R.
0. Was not maintainable.
3. Evidence was recorded. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court rejected both the contentions of the appellant and allowed the amount. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
4. In this appeal some other pleas have been raised. Taking up the first plea, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred as the claim could be entertained only by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act in view of the provisions of subsection (5) of 10-B of the Standing Orders Ordinance that the recovery of money under clause (4) shall be settled in the same manner as is provided for the determination and the recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. I find no force in this contention as subsection (4) simply relates to the procedure to be adopted by the Labour Court while dealing with an application under Standing Order 10-B. It has not been provided that the jurisdiction to decide the claim was vested in the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I, therefore, confirm the view taken by the Labour Court.
5. So far the second plea is concerned, I am unable agree with the Labour Court that there was any power vested in it to decide or award the claim with regard to the disability on account of some disease. To appreciate the point involved in this case, it is necessary to reproduce section 10-B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. It reads as under :- "10-B. Compulsory Group Insurance.-(1) The employer shall have all the permanent workmen employed by him insured against (natural death and disability and) death and injury arising out of contingencies not covered by the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923), or the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (W. P. Ordinance No, X of 1965).
(2) The employer shall in all cases be responsible for the payment of the amount of premia and for all administrative arrangements whether carried out by himself or through an insurance company.
(3) The amount for which each workman shall be insured shall not be less than the amount of compensation specified in Schedule IV to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923).
(4) Where the employer fails to have a permanent workman employed by him insured in the manner laid down in clauses (1), (2) and (3) and such workman suffers death or injury arising out of contingencies mentioned in clause (1) the employer shall pay, in the case of death to the heirs of such workman I or in the case of injury to the workman, such sum of money as would have been payable by the insurance company had such workman been insured.
(5) All claims of a workman or his heirs for recovery of money under clause (4) shall be settled in the same manner as is provided for the determination and recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923)."
' Subsection (1) as originally stood made it incumbent upon the employer to' get the workman insured against death and injury arising out of contingencies not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act or West Pakistan Employees' Security Ordinance. Subsequently, this section was amended in 1975 and the expression "natural death and disability and" was added. Thus it made it compulsory for the employer to insure a workman even with regard to natural death and disability which may arise out of some disease or any other cause in addition to the injury. However, subsection (4) which is material for the disposal of the present case is very important. In this the liability to pay the compensation for failure to have a permanent workman insured in the manner laid down in the previous three clauses was confined to such workman who suffered death or injury and did not extend the liability for payment to the disability arising out of some disease. It may be that through inadvertence the Legislature missed this aspect of the case or intentionally did not make any such provision in subsection (4). There may be a lacuna but that lacuna cannot be filled in by Courts. It is the duty of the Courts to interpret and enforce law as it stands. In the absence of any provision with regard to the disability in subsection (4), as pointed out, the Labour Court was not invested with the jurisdiction to entertain the claim for compensation. It is for the workmen to approach the Government to amend subsection (4) in order to make it applicable to all the contingencies provided by subsection (1).
6. In result the appeal is allowed and order of the Labour Court is set aside.