KARACHI: Contradictions surface as witness cross-examined: PS employee’s death
By Our Reporter
KARACHI, May 29: Contradictions surfaced during the cross-examination of a witness when he was questioned about the circumstances in which a Pakistan Steel employee, Syed Wali Ahmed, died on June 3, 1984.
Mohsin Ali Khan, who was working as deputy manager, In charge CDQP (Coke Dry Quenching Plant) of Pakistan Steel, was cross- examined on Wednesday by counsel Nasir Maqsood before Justice Ataur Rahman in the suit filed by Syed Sami Ahmed against the PS.
His replies also pointed at lack of adequate safety measures adopted by the PS.
Mr. Syed Wali Ahmed had joined Pakistan Steel on Oct 11, 1983, and he was put in the general shift and was attached to Russian expert Sidrin Sacha.
As per affidavit of the witness, on June 3, 1984, the temperature of circulating gases in the boiler was 90 degrees centigrade.
Accordingly Shop In charge and Soviet Expert Mr. Zakharov decided to inspect Boiler No 3, and to open all the 13 manholes for cooling down the Boiler at 11 hours. But at 13:45 hours the Soviet expert, Mr. Vitali, rushed to the office of ASP (CDQP) and informed that Mr. Sidrin Sacha, Soviet expert and one Pakistani, Wali Ahmed, were lying in the manhole of boiler No 3.
To a question about safety precautions and instructions in that regard, the witness replied that standing instructions were given to the staff of Coke Dry Quench Plant which were put on the safety card maintained at the department in respect of each employee.
When the counsel asked what measures were taken to make the hazardous area inaccessible, the witness categorically admitted to the suggestion that no alarm system was maintained which could indicate that anybody had entered the hazardous area of the boilers. He also admitted that there were no barricades to keep the unwanted people away from the danger area.
The witness submitted that boiler operator who was operating the boiler at the time of the accident was still engaged over there in the same work.
When Nasir Maqsood drew the attention of the witness to the memo of instructions, rules and regulation filed with his affidavit-in-evidence and asked him to point out as to which specific rules supported his case, the witness could not point out any such specific instructions but relied upon the safety card maintained at the department which was not produced in the affidavit-in-evidence by him.
To a question whether the Instrument Technician was present at the time of accident or not, he answered in the affirmative. When confronted by counsel Maqsood and reminded of the shift report of the day of accident, wherein it was categorically mentioned “that instrument technician was absent and nobody was on replacement. Instrument No. 62 is out of order”, the witness denied that the noting was in respect of the night shift while the accident took place in the morning shift.
At this point, Justice Ataur Rahman also questioned as to who was the Instrument Technician at the morning shift when the accident took place and what were specific timings of the different shift. The witness replied that the record and attendance in respect of Instrument Technician was maintained in different Log Book and not in the shift record.
Counsel Nasir Maqsood asked him that if matters relating to Instrument Technician were taken down in different log book why the shift report dated June 3, 1984 spoke about absence of Instrument Technician on the same duty. The witness answered that shift in charge sometimes noted down the problems faced by them during the work.
The witness was still in the dock when the court reserved further cross-examination for want of time and adjourned the cross-examination on Aug 22.
Earlier, the witness who was represented by counsel Akhtar Ali Mahmood submitted various documents which pertained to instructions of general safety for workers and engineering staff, instructions on labour safety in gas facilities of gas consuming shops and complexes, instructions on commissioning and operation of coke dry quenching plant beside instructions for boiler operator.
Syed Sami Ahmed, who had prayed for compensation valued at Rs 76,88,563.20 attributed the death of his son to the negligence of the defendants in taking adequate precautions and their total failure to ensure that the boilers were in a dangerous sate, with hatches open, and were not accessible to anyone. It was also his case that the defendants utterly failed in their responsibility as employers in a hazardous industry to make available or to provide adequate medical facilities, including ambulance to carry the victims of an accident to the medical centre.
