Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 650 1988 SLD 650 1988 PLC 397
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. WCK-8 of 1987, heard on 29th September, 1987.
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Mst. NAEEMA JAMSHED

VS

Messrs S REED CLINIC

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S.1(4) & 5.0.10-B--Commercial establishment--Medical Clinic providing treatment on commercial basis charging fee and employing more than 50 persons, is covered by provisions of Ordinance V I of 1968--Claim of widow of deceased employee on account of salary, unavailed leave, gratuity and group insurance, held, was within jurisdiction of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Burjor Anklearia Nursing Home v. Mobin Ahmed Siddiqi 1982 P L C 137 rel. Mirza Muhammad Kazi for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 29th September, 1987. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 2-7-1987, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Central Division, Karachi, who had dismissed the application of the appellant filed by her under order S.O. 10-B of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for want of jurisdiction. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed that her late husband,namely, Jamshed Ali Baber was a permanent employee of the respondent working as administrative assistant in his Clinic and was drawing a monthly salary of about Rs.3,000 at the time of his death. The appellant claimed that as the respondent's Clinic was a commercial establishment earning a huge profits by way of providing medical treatment to the patients against reasonable amount of fee and other charges and there were also more than 50 persons employed in the Clinic of the respondent, therefore, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were applicable to the case of the appellant and she was entitled to maintain her application before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming an amount of Rs.72,000 on account of salary, unavailed leave, bonus, gratuity anti group insurance etc. 3. The respondent resisted the petition on the ground that as the Clinic was neither an industry nor a commercial establishment for the purposes of Standing Orders Ordinance, therefore, the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492