Case Details

Citation(s)
1972 SLD 3031 = 1972 PLC 18
Quetta High Court
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4 of 1968, decided on 5th October 1970.
Presented By: Dorab Patel, J
Muftakhiruddin for Appellant.
Respondent in person.

THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P. W. R., QUETTA-Appellant

VERSUS

MIAN MUHAMMAD-Respondent

Law: Workmen's Compensation Act (V111 of 1923)

Section: 3, 4, 10

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 5

(a) Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), S. 10---Claim' for compensation - Limitation - Commissioner under Act not a "Court" and claim for compensation before him cannot be treated as a suit under Limitation Act-Provisions of Limitation Act, held, not applicable to S. l0-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 It was contended that the Commissioner under the Work men's Compensation Act could not entertain a. time-barred claim unless supported by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and that a claim under the said Act had to be treated as a suit for the purposes of limitation. Held: Such a contention is contrary both to the object and to the express provisions of the said Act. Section 19 expressly ousts the jurisdiction of the civil Courts with regard to claims under the said Act, whilst section 23 empowers the Commissioner to exercise the powers of a civil Court, but only for certain purposes, therefore it is clear that the-, Commissioner is not a Court, and a claim before him cannot be treated as a suit under the Limitation Act. There is nothing in the language of section 10 to support the argument that a claim before a Commissioner is analogous to a suit for the purpose of limitation. On the contrary, the provision that the Commissioner can entertain a claim filed after more than one year for "sufficient cause" is inconsistent with the scheme of the Limitation Act under which suits have to be dis missed unless they are filed within the prescribed period of limita tion. Not only therefore is the Limitation Act not applicable in terms to a claim under the said Act, but there is no analogy whatever between such a claim and a suit in the civil Courts. Another provision which fortifies this conclusion is section 30 of the said Act. This section deals with appeals against orders of the Commissioner, and it describes the period for filing appeals against orders of the Commissioners as a period of limitation and expressly enacts that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to appeals under the Act. The absence of any similar provision with regard to claims filed before a Commissioner is…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register