| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3129 = 1980 SLD 3129 = 1980 SCMR 485 |
Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1977, decided on 10th October, 1979. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16-8-1974 in R.F.A. 51 of 1968).
Presented By: Muhammad Akram, Dorab Patel, G. Safdar Shah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Chitaley and Bakhale on The Limitation Act, 5th Edn., p. 753 ; Rustomji s Law of Limitation (Pakistan Edition), p. 515; Abdullah Mahomed Jabli v. Abdullah Mahomed Zulaikhi A I R 1924 Bom. 290 and Allan Mathewson v. District Board of Manbhum and another A I R 1920 Pat. 324 ref. Appellant in person. Ria: Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General (Punjab) and Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
NATHEY KHAN-Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF -WEST PAKISTAN (Now PUNJAB)-Respondent
Law: Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)
Section: 3(5) (a), 19
Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Section: 22, 36, 24
(a) Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) S. 3(5) (a)-Compensation-Bar to institution of suit-Sec tion 3(5)(a), Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-Bars suit by workmen only when workman himself files claim before Com missioner for Workmen's Compensation-Drawing out of sum deposited by employer-Different from institution of claim Such conduct of workmen, held, does not bring him within mischief of cl. (a) of S. 3(5).-[Jurisdiction]. (b) Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) S. 3(5) (h) read with S. 28-Bar to institution of suit-Regis tration of agreement-Persuasion of injured person by employer to accept offer of compensation for injury received-Not enough--Employer, after obtaining workman's consent to such agreement required to send "a memorandum thereof to Com missioner"-Commissioner in his turn bound to intimate such fact to workman, entertain his representation, if any, and hear him-Commissioner thereafter can register agreement if satisfied as to compensation offered being adequate and not obtained by taking advantage of superior bargaining power Claim of workman in civil Courts, held, barred only when agreement registered. -[Jurisdiction]. (c) Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) S. 19--Scope-Cause of action for claim under Workmen's Com pensation Act, 1923-Different from cause of action for claim in tort-Difference stated. A workman's cause of action for a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is different from his cause of action for a claim in tort, because the employs liability under the said Act is much more strin gent than under the law of Tort. The employer is liable to compensate his workman section 3 of the said Act for any injury "caused to a work man by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" unless the accident is directly attributable to the workman having been under the influence of drinks or drugs at the time of the accident, or unless the accident is due to the wilful disobedience of the workman to orders expressly given or rules expressly framed in securing the safety of worken or unless the accident is caused by the willful removal or…