1989 PLP 932 (PLC)

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑This petition is directed against the demand for a sum rd K: 17,4(10 as the contribution for the workmen under the West Pakistan Employee, Social Ordinance, 1905 hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) for tile months of September, 1971) to November, 1979. In support of the above petition, Mr. Choudhary Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged as follows: (i) That since the petitioner is a State owned enterprise, the provisions of the Ordinance cannot be made applicable. (ii) That during the period in question out of 220 workmen 200 workmen were drawing salary more than what has been specified in the Ordinance, and therefore, they were not covered by the provisions of the Ordinance. (iii) That the impugned notification dated 17th September, 1979, issued under subsection (3) of section 1 of the Ordinance is discriminatory inasmuch as some other State enterprise like Pakistan Steel Mill. Machine Tool Factory, P.I.D.C. have not been notified under the above provisions of the Ordinance. Adverting to the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is a State enterprise and therefore, the provisions of the Ordinance cannot be made applicable, it may be observed that subsection (3) of section 1 of the Ordinance provides that the Ordinance shall apply to such areas, classes of persons, industries or establishments from such date or dates which the Government by a notification may specify in this behalf. In our view, there is no exemption granted to any of the establishments or industries by virtue of the fact that the Government might be having the majority shares in the establishment. As regards the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the relevant period 200 workmen out of 220 workmen were drawing salary more than what has been specified in the Ordinance, and therefore, the provisions of the Ordinance are not applicable, it may be stated that the above question should have been agitated by the petitioner before the appellate forum provided for in the Ordinance which the petitioner failed to avail of. We cannot decide the above disputed question of fact in the above Constitutional petition. Referring to the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned notification is discriminatory inasmuch as the other State enterprises like Pakistan Steel Mill, Machine Tool Factory and P.I.D.C. have not been notified under the Ordinance, it may be pointed out that in subsection (3) of section 1 of the Ordinance, it has been provided that the Government may from time to time issue notification for making the provisions of the Ordinance applicable to any industry or establishment or any class of industry or establishment or to any industry. It does not contemplate that a notification should cover all the industries and establishments at a time, it is for the government to decide as to when a notification in relation to a particular industry or establishment is tee be issued. The above petition has no merit and, therefore, it is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. M.Z.S./T‑54/K Appeal dismissed.