This is an appeal against the order dated 10-11-1975 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Lahore, awarding compensation of Rs. 10,000 to Munawar Ali Shah, respondent.
2. Munawar Ali Shah, respondent was employed as a Mechanic in the workshop of Rana Motors Limited. On 12-7-1973 he met with an accident by striking a piece of iron with the result that his leg was injured. At that time his monthly salary - was Rs. 310. He filed a petition claiming com-- pensation of Rs. 20,000 before the learned Commissioner, who only awarded compensation of Rs.
10,000.
3. Aggrieved by the above order, Rana Motors Ltd., through Rana Allah Dad, Director Incharge, appellants preferred this appeal on 10-9-1976. Alongwith the appeal the applicants filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that neither the impugned order was announced in the presence of the applicants nor any intimation was given to them by the learned Commissioner.
4. On going through the record I find that the appellants on coming to know of the impugned order filed a review petition on 21-2-1976 before the learned Commissioner, which was admitted for hearing on 21-2-1976 and was finally dismissed on 13-7-1976. 1 also find that the relevant interim orders and the order of the date of announcement of the impugned order are missing from the record. In order to find out the correct position I recorded the statement of Mr. Fasahat-ur-Rehman, who had passed the impugned order. He stated that he had disposed of this case on 10-11-1972 and that he was positive that a clerk representing Rana Motors Limited was present on the date when the impugned order was announced. In cross---examination he stated that the clerk, who had represented Rana- Motors Limited, did not produce any authority. When he was asked as to when the arguments in this case were concluded and whether any date was fixed for the announcement of the impugned order he replied that since the order-sheet was missing he could not answer the question. Thus it is not definite as to whether the appellants or any body else on their behalf were informed of the date when the impugned order was to be announced. But since the appellants had filed a review petition, they had come to know of the impugned order before filing the review petition. That review petition was not maintainable, because there is no right of review provided under the Workmen's Compensa--tion Act and that is why it was rightly rejected.
Therefore, the appellants, instead of filing the review petition, should have filed the appeal when they came to know of the impugned order. Under these circumstances, this is not a fit case for condonation of delay.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that even if the appeal was barred by time, the bar of limitation will not stand in the way, because the order of the learned Commissioner was without jurisdiction on the ground that the claim was not preferred within the prescribed period. In this connection he relied on the judgment in the case, 'Rahins Bakhsh and another v. Gul Muhammad and two others (PLD 1971 Lah. 747), wherein was held that it was well- settled that no period of limitation runs against the void orders, which are nullity in the eye of law.
He also relied on the judgments in the cases, Syed Muhmood Alam v. Syed Mehdi Hussain and two others (PLD 1970 Lah. 6) and Premier Cloth Mills Limited, Lyallpur v. Zakir Manzoor Hussain (1976 PLC 22) wherein the same view was expressed.
6. Now the point, which arises, is as to whether the impugned order is void or not. The accident took place on 13-7-1975 notice of accident was given on 9-10-1975 and the claim was filed on 1-11-1975.
According to section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, no claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless the notice of accident has been given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof, and unless the claim is preferred before him within three years of the occurrence of the accident. Prior to the Act XIV of 1973, the claim had to be preferred within one year. Therefore, taking either way, the claim was within time and as such it cannot be said that the learned Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
7. On merits the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that since no doctor was examined, the learned Commissioner could not have determined the percentage of loss of earning capacity.
This fact alone, in my view, will not render the impugned order invalid. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case. Pakistan Western Railway, Lahore through its Vice-Chairman v. Abdul Majid (PLD 1975 Lah. 363) wherein it was observed : - "I do not agree with the learned counsel that unless a doctor gives opinion as to the percentage of loss of serving capacity, the Commissioner is incompetent to determine the same. The doctor's opinion in this behalf can no doubt be taken note of, but it cannot control the decision of the Commissioner, which is to be based on his own judgment qua loss of earning capacity in proper exercise of his discretion."
The same view was expressed in another judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case Anwar Munir Coal Company, Jhelum v. Muhammad 1qbal and another (PLD 1975 Lah. 367).
8. I. Accordingly, find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.