| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3048 = 1981 SLD 3048 = 1981 PLC 371 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. WCK-15 of 1980, heard on 1st September, 1980.
Presented By: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal
S. M. A. Alavi for Appellants. Muhammad Yousuf for
Respondent.
Appeal No. WCK-15 of 1980, heard on 1st September, 1980.
Presented By: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal
S. M. A. Alavi for Appellants. Muhammad Yousuf for
Respondent.
THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI
VERSUS
ALI HUSSAIN
Law: Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)
Section: 30
Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) S. 30 and First Sched., Items 4 & 25-Compensation due to loss of sight-Loss must be as a result of accident arising out of and in course of employment-Right eye affected and lost eye-sight in an accident-Workman declared fit for duty after payment of compen sation on basis of 30 % loss of earning capacity-Subsequent losing sight in left eye on account of cataract due to old age-Commissioner awarding compensation on basis of 100% loss of earning capacity Subsequent loss of left eye-sight not being a result of accident, order of Commissioner, set aside in appeal by Labour Appellate Tribunal Disability for loss of one eye without complication, held, computable at 40 % and case covered by Serial No. 25 and not Serial No. 4 of First Sched. relating to injuries of first category. Date of hearing : 1st September, 1980. DECISION The respondent, who was employed in the Railways, the appellants herein, as a blacksmith, met with an accident on 13-12-1977, arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in the loss of his right eye despite of prolonged treatment at the Railway Hospital, Jinnah Hospital, Karachi, and Cairn's Railway Hospital, Lahore. Notwithstanding the loss of his right eye a fitness certificate was issued in respect of the respondent on 22-3-1978 by the Railway Authorities suggesting that the respondent could resume his duties as blacksmith. The respondent, however, served a legal notice, dated 31-5-1978, upon the appellants to the effect that he was unable to see properly and hence if the Railway Administration insisted on his resuming duties any injury to his life, limb or organ would be the responsibility of the Railway Administration. It appears that in the meanwhile the…