Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 478 1994 SLD 478 1994 PLC 7
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. 36 of 1991, decision dated: 24-10-1992.
SH. ABDUL WAHEED APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Rab Nawaz, Attorney for Appellant. Riaz ul Hassan for
Respondents.

Mst. ZAINAB BIBI

VS

MANAGING DIRECTOR/ GENERAL MANAGER, MULTAN WOOLLEN SPINNERY, MULTAN and another

Law:

Section:

Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)Ss. 22 & 30Payment of group insurance and gratuityApplication filed by widow of deceased employee for payment of amount of group insurance and gratuity of deceased to her was dismissed by Commissioner on grounds firstly that same was' not presented by a competent person, secondly that same was not in prescribed form and thirdly that proper fee was not paidWidow of deceased employee being legal heir of deceased was quite competent to apply to Commissioner for claim preferred by herOther two grounds that application was not filed in prescribed form and that proper fee was not paid, were merely defects of procedure which could not under law, constitute a valid basis for throwing out her claimSuch defects could be rectified with permission of Commissioner at any stage—Case was remanded to Commissioner for its decision on merits in accordance with law. JUDGMENT This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by Mst. Zainab Bibi from an order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Multan on 791991 dismissing her application claiming an amount of Rs.30,000 as Group Insurance and Rs.2,666 as gratuity in respect of her husband namely, Rahim Bakhsh who died while in the service of respondent No. 1. 2. On 2021991 the appellant applied to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for a payment of Rs.30,000 as group insurance and Rs.2,666 as gratuity in respect of Rahim Bakhsh, her deceased husband. She alleged that her husband was in the service of respondent No. 1 when he died on 691988 and, therefore, she was entitled to the payment of group insurance and gratuity as claimed by her. This application was opposed by respondent No. 1. It was contended that Rahim Bakhsh, deceased had never been in the employment of respondent No. 1. Certain preliminary objections were also raised. 3. During the pendency of the application respondent No. 1 moved an application before the Commissioner that before proceeding…
🔒
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