| Case ID |
233ff944-151e-45de-8755-01869406c1da |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Appeal No. WCK-1 of 1988 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 13, 1988 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 13, 1988 |
| Decision |
The appeal filed by Messrs Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited West Wharf, Karachi against the award of compensation to Sher Muhammad was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, confirming that Sher Muhammad was a workman eligible for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) as amended by the Finance Act VI of 1987. The Tribunal found that although the respondent's total emoluments exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs.1,000, his basic salary was within the defined threshold, thus classifying him as a workman. Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the Commissioner's decision to condone the delay in the claim's filing, recognizing sufficient cause in the respondent's inability to file within the prescribed timeframe. Consequently, the compensation of Rs.3,150 plus Rs.50 as cost was maintained, and the appeal was dismissed with no alteration to the original order. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Messrs Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited West Wharf, Karachi versus Sher Muhammad, adjudicated by the esteemed Labour Appellate Tribunal of Sindh on December 13, 1988, significant legal precedents were set concerning the interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) as amended by the Finance Act VI of 1987. The case revolved around the eligibility of Sher Muhammad for compensation following an accident sustained on July 8, 1981, and the subsequent deliberation of his employment status under the defined parameters of 'workman.' Mr. Muhammad was challenged by the appellants on the grounds that his wages surpassed the statutory limit of Rs.1,000, asserting that his commission on house rent and other allowances negated his classification as a qualifying workman, and additionally, questioning the timeliness of his compensation claim, which was filed 13 months post-incident. The Tribunal meticulously analyzed Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, dissecting the 'wages' definition to exclude non-basic components such as house rent, cost of living allowances, and other specialized payments, thereby reinstating the basic salary criteria. It concluded that Sher Muhammad's basic salary of Rs.745.20, well within the stipulated limit, unequivocally identified him as a workman, thus entitling him to compensation benefits. Moreover, addressing the delay in filing the claim, the Tribunal cited the purposive interpretation of labour laws to favor workmen's welfare, thereby exercising discretion to condone the delay based on the unique circumstances presented by the respondent's misunderstanding of his legal rights. This decision underscored the Tribunal's commitment to safeguarding employee rights and reinforced the necessity for employers to adhere to statutory definitions to ensure fair compensation practices. The case set a definitive stance on the exclusion of certain allowances from wage calculations and emphasized the protective ethos of labour regulations, inspiring similar cases and interpretations in subsequent legal discourse. Notably, the decision referenced and upheld historical precedents, including 1975 P L C 602 and 1975 P L C 708, thereby ensuring consistency and stability within the judicial interpretation of labour laws. |
| Court |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
|
| Entities Involved |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh,
Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited West Wharf, Karachi
|
| Judges |
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI
|
| Lawyers |
Rasheed Ahmed,
SA. Channa
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LIMITED WEST WHARF, KARACHI
|
| Respondents |
SHER MUHAMMAD
|
| Citations |
1989 SLD 1933,
1989 PLC 779
|
| Other Citations |
1975 P L C 602,
1975 P L C 708
|
| Laws Involved |
Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923),
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
|
| Sections |
2(1)(n),
7,
10(b),
5
|