Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHALIDA PERVEEN VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD HANIFHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan LodhiSadiq Ali Hashmi,H.R. Harder
1993 P L C 935
1993 P L C 935
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
Mst. KHALIDA PERVEEN and another
Versus
MUHAMMAD HANIF
Appeal No. FD‑7 of 1985, decided on 16th December, 1985.
Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 30‑‑‑Compensation to heirs of deceased worker‑‑‑Appellant claiming to be widow of deceased‑‑‑Commissioner rejecting claim of appellant and allowing compensation to respondent (father of deceased)‑‑‑Evidence on record requiring further enquiry and probe to decide whether appellant was legally‑wedded wife of deceased‑‑‑Order of Commissioner, in circumstances, set aside in appeal and case remanded.
Sadiq Ali Hashmi, Representative for Appellants.
H.R. Harder for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 10th December, 1985.
JUDGMENT
The order dated 17‑7‑1985 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Faisalabad has been challenged under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, whereby the respondent was held to be entitled to the amount of compensation of Rs.15,000.
2. Appellant No. 1 claims herself to be the widow and appellant No. 2 as the son of the deceased Zulfiqar Ali. The respondent is the father of the deceased. The respondent denied the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 to be the widow and son respectively of the deceased and contended that Khalida Perveen, appellant No. 1, was the wife of one Arshad who had divorced her in January 1985, whereas the deceased is alleged to have married to appellant No. 1 prior to that. The petition was brought by Mst. Khalida Perveen, appellant No. 1, as by that time Muqaddas Abbas had not yet born. The respondent did not say anything in his statement about appellant No. 2, although appellant No. 1 said that she was pregnant. Since the baby had not yet born, the learned Commissioner has not said anything about him. Even if it be said that appellant No. 1 was not the legally‑wedded wife of the deceased. Since the factum of marriage is not denied and the contention is that in the subsistence of the Nikah of Arshad, the deceased contracted marriage with appellant NO‑1, question still arises if appellant No. 2 is or is not entitled to any share being an illegitimate child of the deceased. The learned Commissioner has not said anything about the copy of the divorce deed dated 17‑12‑1983, the original of which too is on record. Without discarding DV after giving cogent reasons, it could not be said that appellant No. 1 was not the legally‑wedded wife of the deceased. The matter, therefore, requires further inquiry and probe.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the case is remanded for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above.
A.E./1521/Lb.P Case remanded.