P L D 2019 Lahore 515 (PLP)

SHAHID WAHEED, J.

This batch of constitutional petitions, 240 in number, whose details are mentioned in the Appendix hereto, under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, involves the question whether the existing provisions of Sections 2(8)(f), 20(1) and 71 of the Punjab Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (Ordinance X of 1965) suffer from the vice of excessive delegation and inter alia for that reason the notifications issued by the Government of Punjab under the said provisions of law determining the wage limits for the purpose of levy of social security contribution are void and inoperative.

2. Before adverting to the challenge thrown in these petitions it will be pertinent to mention that social security to the workers would involve providing or framing such schemes or services or facilities and amenities, which can enable the workers to lead a decent minimum standard of life below which no one should fall and having financial or economic security to fall back upon in the event of loosing job for whatsoever may be the reason in the circumstances beyond their control. It represents basically a system of protection of individuals who are in need of such protection by the State as an agent of the society. Such protection is relevant in contingencies such as sickness, injury or death which are beyond their control. In this context, it is function of the State to secure to its citizens "social, economic and political justice", to guarantee "freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship", and to ensure "equality of status and of opportunity", and the prosperity of the people and the integrity of the territories of the Federation. This is what the preamble to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution") says and that is what is elaborated in the two important Chapters of the Constitution on Fundamental rights and Principles of Policy. The most important provision of Chapter 1, Part II of the Constitution is Article 9 which guarantees right to life. The word "life" is of wider connotation and, it appears, for this reason, William Shakespeare in his Merchant of Venice has said "you take my life, when you do take the means whereby I live" (Act IV, Scene 1) and now in continuation thereof it is well settled that right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and livelihood are inherent in right to life; which also encompasses within its fold right to social security as the ultimate aim of social security is to ensure every secured person the means which will enable him and the members of his family to lead a respectable life.

3. The specific provision relating to social security can also be seen in the Principles of Policy included in Part-II, Chapter-2, of the Constitution which are proclamations for the governance of the country. Article 37 of the Constitution enjoins the State to secure the welfare of the people by: promoting, with special care, the educational and economic interests of backward classes or areas; ensuring inexpensive and expeditious justice; and, making provision for securing just and humane conditions of work, ensuring that children and women are not employed in vocations unsuited to their age or sex, and for maternity benefits for women in employment. Article 38(b) says that the State shall provide for all citizens, within the available resources of the country, facilities for work and adequate livelihood with reasonable rest and leisure; clause (c) envisages that the State shall provide for all persons employed in the service of Pakistan or otherwise, social security by compulsory social insurance or other means; clause (d) contemplates that the State shall provide basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical relief, for all such citizens, irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race, as are permanently or temporarily unable to earn their livelihood on account of infirmity, sickness or unemployment, whereas, clause (e) provides that the State shall reduce disparity in the income and earnings of individuals, including persons in the various classes of the service of Pakistan. These constitutional provisions express the social philosophy in labour issues. And that is to restore the dignity of poor, the weak and the oppressed, who contributes to the welfare of the society against hazards. The principles contained in Part-II, Chap.-2 of the Constitution along with fundamental rights constitute conscious of the Constitution. They supplement each other. In fact the Principles of Policy give sustenance to the orderly growth and development of personality of every citizen whereas fundamental rights make them solemn and dignified. Although the said principles are not enforceable at law yet the same are fundamental in the governance of the country and the State is duty bound to apply these principles in making laws and building a just social order. Adopting the philosophy of the Constitution, the Government has enacted many labour legislations, including the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (Ordinance X of 1965) for protecting the rights of the labour class. It is a beneficial or remedial legislation conceived as a means of ameliorating the lot of working class, and as such, it would be in keeping with the accepted principle of interpretation, that it should be so construed as to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief, or else it would frustrate the legislative intents.1

4. The West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (W. P. Ordinance X of 1965) was promulgated on 4th June 1965. The word "Provincial" was substituted for "West Pakistan" by the Federal Adaptation of Laws Order, 1975 (P.O. 4 of 1975). In the unamended Ordinance the expression "employee" was defined in sub section (8) of Section 2 and clause (f) thereof was couched in the words "any person employed on wages exceeding one thousand rupees per mensem". The words "one thousand five hundred" were substituted for "one thousand" by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Act, 1985. The words "three thousand" were substituted for words "one thousand five hundred" by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 and the Labour Laws (Amendment) Act, 1994 and proviso was also added that an employee shall not cease to be an employee for the reason that his monthly wages exceed three thousand rupees. The words "five thousands" were substituted for "three thousands" by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001. On 29th October, 2002 the Provincial Employees' Social Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 was promulgated and through it for subsection (8) of Section 2 the words "employee means any person employed, whether directly or through any other person for wages or otherwise to do any skilled or unskilled, supervisory, clerical, manual or other work in, or in connection with the affairs of an industry or establishment, under a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether written or oral, expressed or implied but does not include" were added. Clause (f) of subsection (8) of Section 2 was further amended through the Finance Act, 2008 and the word "ten" was substituted for "five" and the amended section 2(8)(f) was worded as under:

2. Definitions. In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires, following expressions shall have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say. (8) "employee" means any person employed, whether directly or through any other person for wages or otherwise to do any skilled or unskilled, supervisory, clerical, manual or other work in, or in connection with the affairs of an industry or establishment, under a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether written or oral, expressed or implied but does not include-- (f) any person employed on wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem: Provided that an employee shall not cease to be an employee for the reason that his monthly wages exceed ten thousand rupees. The other provision of the Ordinance X of 1965, that is, Section 20(1) was firstly amended through the Labour Laws (Amendment) Act, 1994 and in subsection (1) the words "provided that no contribution shall be payable on so much of an employee's wages as in excess of one hundred and twenty rupees per day or three thousand rupees per month" were added; secondly, in the proviso to subsection (1) for the words "one hundred and twenty rupees per day or three thousand rupees per month" the words "two hundred rupees per day or five thousand rupees per month" were substituted vide the Provincial Employees' Social Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002; and, thirdly, through the Finance Act, 2008 in subsection (1) after the word "rate" the words "not more than six percent" were inserted whereas in the proviso for the words "two" , the word "four" and for the word "five", the word "ten" respectively were substituted and amended section 20(1) was thus as under:

20. Amount and payment of Contribution:- (1)Subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, the employer shall, in respect of every employee, whether employed by him directly or through any other person pay to the Institution a contribution at such times, at such rate not more than six percent and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that no contribution shall be payable on so much of an employees' wages as is in excess of four hundred rupees per day or ten thousand rupees per month. The method of review and modification of wage limits, contribution and benefits is provided in Section 71 of the Ordinance X of 1965. The first amendment in this Section was made through the Labour Laws (Amendment) Act, 1994 and in subsection (1) for the words "subsection (4) of Section 20" the words "clause (f) of subsection (8) of section 2" were substituted and in subsection (2) for the words "subsection (4) of Section 20" the words "clause (f) of subsection (8) of Section 2" were substituted and the same prior to 2013 was to the following effect:

71. Review and modification of wage limits, contribution and benefits:- (1) In January of each year, the Governing Body shall review the wage limits specified in clause (f) of sub section (8) of section 2 and the rates of contribution and benefits provided under this Ordinance in the light of any changes in wage levels or living costs and shall submit a report thereon together with its recommendations to Government. (2) Government may, after considering the said report and recommendations, by notification, enhance or reduce the wages limits specified in clause (f) of subsection (8) of section 2 or the rates of benefits payable under this Ordinance.

5. After the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 the subject of labour was devolved upon the Provinces and, thus, the Government of Punjab on 13th December 2013 promulgated the Provincial Employees' Social Security (Amendment) Act, 2013. The word "Provincial" was substituted for "Punjab". By virtue of section 3 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security (Amendment) Act, 2013 an amendment was made in subsection (8) for clause (f) of section 2 of the Ordinance X of 1965 and now the same reads as under:

2. Definitions. In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires, following expressions shall have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say. (8) "employee" means any person employed, whether directly or through any other person for wages or otherwise to do any skilled or unskilled, supervisory, clerical, manual or other work in, or in connection with the affairs of an industry or establishment, under a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether written or oral, expressed or implied but does not include-- (f) any person employed on wages exceeding the wages determined by the Government under Section 71 " It is appropriate to mention here that during pendency of these petitions further amendment was made in the said provision and following proviso was added through the Provincial Employees' Social Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 and now clause (f) of subsection (8) of Section 2 reads as under: "(f) any person employed on wages exceeding the wages determined by the Government under section 71: Provided that an employee shall not cease to be an employee for the sole reason that his monthly wages exceed the wages determined by the Government under section 71 of the Ordinance." The second material amendment was made in Section 20 (1) of the Ordinance X of 1965 which was to the following effect:

20. Amount and payment of contributions. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, the employer shall, in respect of every employee, whether employed by him directly or through any other person pay to the Institution a contribution at such times, at the rate of six per cent and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that no contribution shall be payable on so much of an employee's wages as is in excess of the wages determined by the Government under Section

71. The third amendment, relevant for the controversy at hands, relates to Section 71 of the Ordinance X of 1965. In the said Section 71 the words "specified in clause (f) of subsection (8) of section 2", wherever occur was omitted. Now the amended Section 71 reads as under:

71. Review and modification of wage limits, contribution and benefits.

(1) In January of each year, the Governing Body shall review the wage limits and the rates of contribution and benefits provided under this Ordinance in the light of any changes in wage levels or living costs and shall submit a report thereon together with its recommendations to Government. (2) Government may, after considering the said report and recommendations, by notification, enhance or reduce the wage limits or the rates of benefits payable under this Ordinance.

6. By way of these petitions the amendments made in the Ordinance X of 1965 through the Provincial Employees' Social Security (Amendment) Act, 2013 have been impeached on the following grounds: First, that the amendments brought in Sections 2(8)(f) and 71 of the Ordinance X of 1965 have the effect of taking the determination of wage limits out of the hands of the Legislature and given to the Executive in violation of the Constitution. The delegation is excessive as no standards have been provided for exercise of power by the Executive. Second, that this is the case where Provincial legislature has effectively surrendered its legislative powers to the Provincial Government. The question is not of the intrinsic importance of the particular statute or the fact that legislation is for the welfare of labour, but of the constitutional processes of legislation which are an essential part of the system of Government. The failure to enact standards for guidance equates to transference of essential legislative function. Third, that Section 71 purports to empower the Executive to not only determine who is or is not an employee for the purposes of the Ordinance X of 1965. By removing the amount specified in Section 2(8) (f) and substituting it with phrase "exceeding the wages determined by the Government under Section 71", the Legislature has left it open for the Executive to become the arbiter of whether or not a law applies to the individual. As such, the provisions of the Ordinance X of 1965 as amended by the Provincial Employees' Social Security (Amendment) Act, 2013 are beyond the scope of proper delegation of authority to the Executive. Fourth, that Section 71 also purports to empower the Executive to decide the rates of wages that justify entitlement to benefit under the Ordinance X of 1965. This is again an example of excessive delegation. Fifth, that even on the touchstone of basic constitutional principles such as rule of law, the inalienable right of persons to be dealt with fairly and in accordance with law and the right to carry out their trade, business or professions, these provisions are problematic. The rule of law requires certainty so that citizens can govern themselves accordingly. In this case, by legislating away the power to make the most essential of determinations with respect to the Ordinance X of 1965 to an overzealous, capricious and arbitrary Executive which has no regard either for the proper limits of its power or the constitutional rights of the citizenry, the Legislature has not only abdicated an essential element of legislative power, it has also abandoned the sacred trust with which it was entrusted. And sixth, that the Ordinance X of 1965 was originally enacted in 1965 and the amount specified in Section 2(8)(f) was raised five times whereas proviso to Section 20 was added in 1994 and it was only amended twice. This was because the responsibility to make these changes was retained by the Legislature and it only made the changes as and when social circumstances necessitated such a change. Now, with this key legislative function having been unceremoniously outsourced to an Executive, four drastic revisions to the wage rates have been brought about in the span of a few years. If one looks at the revision of wage limits, it is startling how quickly and how high the wage limits have jumped under the Executive control. It is a trite fact that no grave social or financial change has occurred in the country between 2013 to 2017 to justify such wildly exorbitant revisions. The Executive has deprived the citizenry of legal certainty to plan their businesses because employers now live in perpetual fear of arbitrary and unexpected increases in demands for contribution that will translate into unforeseeable financial liabilities that could potentially cripple their industries. Strong hammering of above grounds has been made with different precedents.2

7. There is undoubtedly an element of delegation implied in the provisions of Sections 2(8)(f), 20(1) and 71 of the Ordinance X of 1965 for the Legislature, in a sense, has authorized the Government to do something which it might do itself. But whether such delegation, in the light of above stated objections, appears to us to be unwarranted and unconstitutional. For determining this question, it is necessary to see as to what are the principles governing delegation of legislative power. On review of the precedents cited at the Bar and other case law on the subject, it seems to be consensus of opinion that primary duty of law making is of the Legislature and while doing so its aim is to project its mind or will or judgment as far as possible into the future, and to provide in terms as general as possible for all contingencies likely to arise in the application of law. Since the power of delegation is a constituent element of legislative policy as a whole under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution and other relative Articles, the Legislature, for making the law wholesome and pragmatic so as to promote the Principles of Policy of the Constitution, at times adopts a generous degree of latitude and considers it convenient and necessary not to provide complete details by determining all factors or matters specifically for all cases and, therefore, legislation from earlier times, and particularly in modern times, has taken the form of delegated legislation leaving it to some authority to fill in the details or determine the factors or matters in which the law shall be applied; a Legislature, however, cannot certainly strip itself of its essential functions and vest the same with an extraneous authority. Exactly what constitutes "essential legislative function" is difficult to define in general terms, but this much is clear that the essential legislative function must at least consist of the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a binding rule of conduct. Thus, where the law passed by the Legislature, declares the legislative policy and lays down the standard or principle which is enacted into a rule of law, it can leave the ancillary or subsidiary task of the statute to the subordinate bodies, which must do it within the framework of the law which makes the delegation and cannot go beyond the limits of the policy and standard laid down in the law. In the wake of above, the principles of delegation of legislative power may be formulated as follows: (i) that under the Constitution, the Legislature has plenary powers within its allotted field; (ii) that essential legislative function cannot be delegated by the Legislature, that is, there can be no abdication of legislative function or authority by complete effacement, or even partially in respect of particular topic or matter entrusted by the Constitution to the Legislature; and, (iii) that power to make subsidiary or ancillary legislation may, however, be entrusted by Legislature to another body of its choice, provided there is enunciation of policy, principles or standards either expressly or by implication for the guidance of the delegate in that behalf. Entrustment of power without guidance amounts to excessive delegation of legislative authority.

8. While applying the foregoing principles it is to be seen as to whether in the present case guidance was afforded to the delegate (the Government) in determining the wage limit for the purpose of levy of contribution as envisaged in Sections 2(8)(f) and 20(1) of the Ordinance X of 1965 by laying down principle in that behalf. In this respect, I first wish to observe that validity of the guidance cannot be tested by a rigid uniform rule. If we can find a reasonably clear statement of policy either in the provisions of the Ordinance X of 1965 or in its Preamble, then any part of the Ordinance X of 1965 cannot be attacked on the ground of delegated legislation by suggesting that the questions of policy have been left to the delegate. In the case on hands the legislative policy is apparent from the preamble to the Ordinance X of 1965. What it aims at, is to introduce a scheme of social security by collecting contribution from the employer, in respect of an employee, defined in Section 2(8), at such rate provided in Section 20 on so much of an employee's wages determined by the Government under Section 71 for extending benefits, envisaged in Chapter V, to the secured persons or their dependents in the event of sickness, maternity, employment injury or death, and for matters ancillary thereto with a view to obviate the chance of their exploitation by ensuring social justice to them so that they may lead their lives with dignity.

9. Here it may also be noticed that the Legislature besides stating its policy has also provided framework for the guidance of the delegate (the Government) to exercise the power for determination of wage limits for the purposes of clause (f) of subsection (8) of Section 2 and also Section 20(1) of the Ordinance X of 1965. The Ordinance X of 1965 through its Section 71 provides framework consisting of two steps procedure to exercise the delegated power. At first step the Government through the Governing Body of the Punjab Employees; Social Security Institution (PESSI) comprising (i) a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court or a Senior Officer in the service of Pakistan not below the rank of Commissioner of a Division or Secretary to Government (ii) four persons to represent Government, one of each respectively from the departments of Labour, Industry, Health and Finance (iii) three persons to represent the employers, including at least one woman (iv) three persons to represent the secured persons, including at least one woman; and (v) the Medical Advisor reviews in January each year, the wage limits specified in Section 2(8)(f) and the rates of contribution and benefits provided under the Ordinance X of 1965 in the light of any changes in wage levels or living costs. This initial review of wage limits is not unfettered. It is conspicuous: firstly, that in the process of first review, the Government captures all stakeholders, giving equal representation to the employers and secured persons in the Governing Body of the PESSI, for consultation so as to eliminate the element of oppression and exploitation of any party to the social security system; secondly, that power of review can only be exercised if there is any change in the wage levels or living costs and not otherwise; and, thirdly, that it is a time bound activity. Taking into consideration the employer's concerns including the expected increased cost of doing business, threats to profitability, etc. and to remove any element of uncertainty in the system of social security the review of wage limits and the rates of contribution and benefits is made once in January of each year. At second step the Government within its hierarchy and at the level of Cabinet again considers the wage limits specified in clause (f) of subsection (8) of Section 2 or the rates of contribution and benefits provided under the Ordinance X of 1965 in the light of three factors viz (i) wage levels, (ii) living costs, and (iii) the report of the Governing Body and upon examination thereof if feels satisfied, it may review or modify the same through a notification. An appraisal of this framework suggests that the power delegated upon the Government is not uncanalized and uncontrolled. It is rather confined within banks which keep it from overflowing. Besides above, we have to keep in mind, in the present case, delegation of power is on the Provincial Government which is the highest executive in the province of Punjab, and is responsible to the Provincial Assembly. In a parliamentary democracy every act of the Government is accountable to its people through Legislature which itself is an additional factor which keeps the Government under check not to act arbitrarily or unreasonably.

10. In fact the framework provided through the amended provisions of the Ordinance (X of 1965) is a device to determine the factor by maintaining proportionality between wage limit and living costs for calculating the amount of contribution payable by the employer during the course of year so as to provide quality benefits to the secured persons. Previously the Legislature itself had been making amendment in the Ordinance (X of 1965) and fixing wage limit, rate of contribution and benefits. It is a matter of record that since the promulgation of the Ordinance (X of 1965) the wage limit was modified for five times by the Legislature. This rigidity in the review of the wage limit could be due to the fact that the process of bringing amendment in the law was not swift or the Legislature on account of paucity of time could not know as to the detail of the fluctuating prices of the consumer goods and living costs during the year and for that matter could not also be in a position to review or modify the wage limits. Since the procedure in bringing amendment in the law had become a stumbling block in enhancing benefits and, for that reason, was not found a cause of mirth for the system of social security, the Legislature in implementing the socio economic policy pursuant to the establishment of a welfare State as contemplated by the Constitution thought it prudent to delegate the power of review or modification of wage limits, rate of contribution and benefits to the Government. In this context the Ordinance (X of 1965) itself provided the framework and left it to the Government to exercise discretion in the manner laid down within the framework. It cannot, therefore, be regarded as an abdication of its function by the Legislature but by law a valid delegation of discretion to achieve purpose of law. The backdrop to the intention of the Legislature is best projected by the following words of English Writer, Samual Johanson: "

Where a great proportion of the people are suffered to languish in helpless misery, that country may be ill policed, and wretchedly governed; a decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization" Accordingly, the grounds canvassed before this Court sans merit and the wisdom of the Legislature cannot be held flawed on the plea of excessive delegation of legislative power and for that reason the notifications, under challenge cannot be declared void.

11. There is yet another good reason for which the objections raised in these petitions must fail. And that is that the Ordinance X of 1965 is undoubtedly a beneficent measure which seeks to promote the Principles of Policy as provided in Chapter 2, Part-II of the Constitution so as to improve the economic and social conditions of the labour class i.e. secured persons by delegating power to the Government for reviewing or modifying the wage limits specified in clause (f) of subsection (8) of Section 2 in the light of any changes in wage levels or living costs. It is now well settled that in such like legislation, a generous degree of latitude is permissible to the Legislature in the matter of delegation. Bearing in mind the preamble and the material provisions of the Ordinance X of 1965, as highlighted in the preceding paragraphs, it is held that the power delegated is within permissible limits. This view finds support from Vasantal Maganbhai's case.3

12. Next coming to the question whether the determination of wage limits by the Government in exercise of its delegated power through different notifications for the purpose of payment of social security contribution as envisaged in Sections 2 (8)(f) and 20(1) is arbitrary or excessive. Before going into this question it would not be out of place to state here that this batch of petitions calls into question four notifications which are of dated 18th October, 2012, 30th January, 2013, 12th August, 2014 and 15th June, 2017. The first three notifications were earlier challenged before this Court in Pioneer Cement Limited's case4 wherein notifications dated 18th October, 2012 and 30th January, 2013 were declared illegal whereas notification dated 12th August, 2014 was held valid. In these circumstances the petitioners through these petitions cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter with regard to said notifications on the principle of res-judicata. The only notification which is now left for examination is of dated 15th June, 2017. Now, let us examine it.

13. In one of the connected writ petition i.e. W.P. No.180622 of 2018 a Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 03 of 2018 was filed with a prayer that record of the Governing Body, constituted under Section 5 of the Ordinance X of 1965 be requisitioned so as to establish the fact that wage limits were determined without taking into consideration the relevant material and the recommendations were made without assigning any reason. In response to notice of the said application the record of the Governing Body was presented before this Court; perusal whereof suggested that an agenda item was presented before the Members of the Governing Body who on its basis made recommendations to the Government to enhance the wage limits specified in clause (f) of subsection (8) of Section 2 of the Ordinance X of 1965. It was, thus, argued that determination of the wage limits by the Government through impugned notification was not only arbitrary but also unreasonable. It was, in fact, a plea that the impugned notification issued by the Government on the recommendations of the Governing Body hit by the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness as enunciated in the Wednesbury Corporation's case.5 This argument appeared to be convincing at first blush and thus, caused me to raise my eyebrows. Being faced with this situation the learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that since enclosures of the agenda items had been destroyed, it could not be presented before this Court and, thus, it would not be in the interest of justice to hold that relevant material was not available before the Governing Body. However, in order to overcome this imbroglio he suggested that the recommendations of the Governing Body of the PESSI to enhance the wage limits were based upon two factors, viz, (i) wage level, and (ii) living costs; which could be ascertained at any time from a public document, that is, Pakistan Economic Survey issued by the Finance Division, Government of Pakistan. He, thus, sought permission to submit a report detailing justification for review of wage limit. I found that this request had the backing of the cases of Abdul Majid Sardar's case6 and Lahore Improvement Trust case7 wherein it was held that acts performed and orders made by public authorities deserve due regard by Courts and every possible explanation for their validity should be explored and the whole field of powers in pursuance to which the public authorities act or perform their functions examined and only then if it is found that act done, order made or proceeding undertaken is without lawful authority the Courts should declare them to be of no legal effect. I accordingly allowed the respondents to place on record the material justifying the issuance of the impugned notification. Complying with the said direction the respondents on 1st October 2018 submitted report suggesting the basis to enhance the wage limits through the impugned notification. This report was not supported by the documents and, thus, vide order dated 3rd October, 2018 another opportunity was afforded to the respondents to place on record relevant notifications and extracts of the Pakistan Economic Survey. Complying with this order, the respondents through C.M. No.2 of 2018 in W.P. No.58700 of 2017 placed on record the relevant material. The report furnished by the respondents is comprehensive and covers all aspect of the matter, under discussion, and, thus, the relevant excerpts thereof are reproduced below:

1. Background of Determining Upper Wage Limits under section 71 of Ordinance:. Historically the Upper Wage Limit was introduced through legislative amendments by revising section 2 (8) (f) of the Ordinance. These amendments in this particular provision continued till the year 2008. The Provincial Assembly of the Punjab through Social Security (Amendment) Act, 2013 made the Ordinance as the provincial social security law in Punjab with effect from 7th October 2013. This amendment revised Section 2 (8)(f) and for the first time substituted fixed upper wage amount to criteria set under Section

71. Consequently, Section 71 that earlier was restricted by the wage values stated in Section 2 (8) (f) was no more bound by any values. This meant that the Government could now determine the wage limit from time to time as recommended by Governing Body in accordance with parameters laid down in Section

71. Section 71 empowered the Governing Body of PESSI to review wage limits in light of any changes in wage levels or living costs and submit a report with its recommendations to Government. It is pertinent to submit that Governing Body of PESSI has been considering wage levels and living costs for the purposes of various benefits enumerated in the Ordinance. The higher wage limits particularly help in extending coverage of social security to more employees. Therefore, to render compatible benefits to the secured persons with ever increasing living costs and inflation, etc. and keeping in view the changes in wage levels or living costs, the provisions of section 71 of the Ordinance require the Institution to review and modify the wage limits for contribution and benefits every year. It enables the beneficiaries to cope with the upcoming economic challenges. Moreover, the beneficiaries of the Institution are a unionized community, who time and again demand the review in wage limits to avail enhanced amount of cash benefits. The detail of all the four notifications issued by Government on recommendations of Governing Body is provided below which also shows the percentage increase of upper wage limit: TABLE 1 Wages Enhancement in Difference Phases Sr. Notification No. and Date Enhancement of wages Percentage Increased From To

1. So (Dev-II) MW/2011/P-II dated 18-10-2012 Rs.10,000 Rs.12,500 25%

2. SO(Admn)7-17/2011, dated 30-01-2013 Rs.12,500 Rs.15,000 20%

3. SO(Dev-II)7-12/2014, dated 12-08-2014 Rs.15,00 Rs.18,000 20%

4. SO(D-II_07-12/2014, dated 15-06-2017 Rs.18,00 Rs.22,000 22%

2. Review of Wage Limits under section 71 by Governing Body The last fixed upper wage ceiling of Rs. 10,000 was provided in the law through Finance Act, 2008. The minimum wage at that time was fixed at Rs.6000/-. It is important to highlight that the minimum wage kept on rising for a long time while the upper wage limit remained static for about four (4) years. In the year, 2012 the minimum wage was raised to Rs.9000/- leaving behind a minor gap of Rs.1000/- only with the upper wage ceiling. This minor gap between the wage limits necessitated the review of upper wage limit. The detailed Co-Relation of Minimum Wage to Upper Wage Limit is provided in the Table "2 " below, which clearly depicts that the gap fixed between lower and upper wage limits through Finance Act, 2008 was kept into consideration while deciding the revision of wage limits by the Governing Body.

3. Parameters Considered by Governing Body A Wage Level: The Government has been revising the minimum wage levels periodically. The following table provides a correlation between the minimum and upper wages Table 2: Correlation of Minimum and Maximum Wage Limit Year Minimum Wage Limit Upper Wage Limit % Age of Gap Between Min. and Upper Wage Limit 2008 Rs.6000/- Rs.10,000/- 66.66% 2010 Rs.7000/- Rs.10,000- 42.85% Upto Oct.2012 Rs.9000/- Rs.10,000/- 11.11% Oct.2012 onward Rs.9000/- Rs.12.500/- 38.88% Upto June, 2012 Rs.9000/- Rs.15,000/- 66.66% July 2013 Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- 50% July, 2014 Rs.12,000/- Rs.18,000/- 50% July, 2015 Rs.13,000/- Rs.18,000/- 38.46% July, 2016 Rs.14,000/- Rs.18,000/- 28.57% June, 2017 Rs.15,000/- Rs.22,000/- 46.66% The table depicts that the upper wage limit was static for quite some time and the gap between minimum and upper wage limits was reduced to Rs.1000 only in 2012. This necessitated the immediate remedial steps to review the wage limits and huge number of employees were being deprived of the benefits. The table also vividly provides that the percentage gap between wage limits was maintained in accordance with the last amendment in the Ordinance through the Finance Act, 2008 and never exceeded that percentage in later years. The upper wage limits were, as such, enhanced to the tune of Rs.12,000/- during the span of 6 years (from 2012 to 2018) which enabled 1,99,015 more workers to avail the benefits of this Institution, raising the percent strength of secured persons to 10,25,280 as compared to 8,26,265 secured workers in the year, 2011. It may also be mentioned here that the budget of Rs.221.05 million meant for disbursement of cash benefits to the secured persons in the years, 2011-12 has now climbed to Rs.410.40 million in the year, 2017-18 with a rise of Rs.85.66%. Whereas during last decade the health care PESSI budget of Rs.1.88 billion in the year 2008-09 has now climbed to Rs.7.1 5 billion in the year, 2017-18 with 279.5% rise. The ever rising expenses of the Institution compel it explore new and more fund generation resources to run its manifold welfare activities and plans. B. Living Costs: The second parameter taken into account by the Governing Body while determining wage limits is the living costs. The Living Costs may be interpreted as representing the actual incomes required to sustain minimum and average living costs. Given that average Punjab wages fall short of this amount, the typical household would not have enough saving to cushion against negative shocks. As these costs cannot be covered through wage earnings and there is little saving, this raises the burden on the average household. Taking the average household cost as the upper ceiling ensures social protection for workers who are most vulnerable, i.e. earning between the minimum wage and what is costs to maintain existing consumption patterns. In this regard, the PESSI upper ceiling can be estimated as that required to meet existing household consumption expenditure. This provides a range of values that PESSI could use for an upper ceiling, i.e. the average living cost can be taken for either the average income household, or the household belonging to the bottom income group. Another insight into revising upper ceilings can be obtained by benchmarking using several nationally collected wage and costs indicators. For this we index the ceiling of Rs.10,000 in 2008 with i) Consumer Price Inflation ii) Minimum wage iii) Average wage for Punjab and iv) Average urban wage for manufacturing in Punjab. Since the last legislative wage rise in the year 2008, the living costs and Consumers Price Index (CPI) were also raised to the tune of over 25% by the year 2012-13 affecting the daily living of a common man. Therefore it was imperative to consider increasing the upper wage limit. The CPI that was used as a proxy for Inflation Rate is an important macroeconomic indicator and one of the key variables that guide the government and the Governing Body of PESSI to make rational decision for sustainable outcomes. The following graph indicates the year wise inflation during the decade in question i.e. 2008 to 2018: Fig 1: Inflation Rate (Consumer Prices, Base year 2007-08) (Source: Economic Survey of Pakistan (Various Issues)) The above cumulative increase in inflation indicates that the general price level has been increased from 100 to 220.62, which shows 121% increase in the general price level since 2007-08. PRICE TRENDS OF ESSENTIAL ITEMS The Table "3" below shows the growth of prices of essential items over a period of last 10 years. Almost all of the items showed over 100% increase in the general price level since 2008-09, (milk 243.33%; wheat 112.5%; Potatoes 143.42%; mutton 178.125%; beef 144.24%; vegetable ghee 78.77%). By giving similar weights to all essential items, the average growth rate of all items comes to over 121.76 percent and indicates more than double the price level. This directly affects the living cost of the consumers at a considerable and significant rate. Table 3: Price Trends of Essential Items Essential Commodities (Years) Price in PKR Growth rate (%) 2008-09 2017-18 Wheat 16 34 112.5 Mutton 320 890 178.125 Beef 165 403 144.24 Mash Pulse 62 163 162.91 Masoor Pulse 124 129 4.032 Mong Pulse 50 133 166 Eggs 53.07 96 78.77 Sugar 21 57 171.42 Vegetable Ghee 90 153 70 Basmati Rice 107.5 90 -16.28 Tea 389.88 974 149.82 Milk 30 103 243.33 Patatoes 15.2 37 143.42 Tomatoes 28.52 56 96.35 Average Growth in Prices of Essential Items 121.76 Source: Ministry of Finance; Pakistan Economic Survey Various Issues (2008-2018) GENERAL PRICE HIKE IN HEALTH AND EDUCATION Apart from prices of essential items, we may look over the variations of price levels in health and education sector. Again a drastic increase can be observed in the prices during the last decade. The figures given in the following table show 116.26% increase in health sector while 159.12% increase in education sector. It must be kept in mind that PESSI spends huge amounts on providing comprehensive health facilities to its beneficiaries through its own hospitals, dispensaries etc. in the province of Punjab. Likewise its self-funded and autonomous status require PESSI to explore more funds generation resources to balance over rising expenses. Fig 2: Trends of Prices in Health and Education Source: Pakistan Economic Survey 2017-18 PRICES OF ENERGY SECTOR (Electricity, Gas, Water and Fuel) Everyone is the consumer of electricity because it is an essential part of our life. Similarly Gas, Water and Fuel are non-food essential items not only widely used by the consumers but have also a significant importance in the production process. Price hike in any of the above mentioned energy items affect consumer and the entrepreneurs directly. PESSI and Governing Body cannot ignore these sectors while making the policies at large. So we present the cumulative price trends of energy sector in the following table 3, which indicates 100% increase during the last decade: Fig 3: Housing, Water Elec, Gas and Fuel Source: Ministry of Finance GOP 2017-2018 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Table 5: ANNUAL TREND OF CPI, INCREASE IN GOVT. SALARIES AND PESSI'S INITIATIVES (1) (2) (3) (4) Year CPI(%) Increase in Salaries and Pensions (%) Periodical Increase by Institution (%) 2008-09 20.29 20 100 2009-10 13.65 15 0 2010-11 13.88 15 0 2011-12 11.92 15 0 2012-13 9.69 20 25 2013-14 7.69 10 20 2014-15 7.19 10 20 2015-16 2.54 7.5 0 2016-17 3.75 10 22 2017-18 5.21 10 0 Average Annual Increments 9.6 13.25 8.7 It is an admitted fact that the productivity of a worker depends on real wage rate (the real wage rate is the adjusted monetary wage rate with the inflation rate), which shows the purchasing power of worker's pay packet. It is important to keep an eye on the growth of general price level and respective rates of real wages. The real wage rate and economic growth rate has an inherited relationship. We cannot separate the real wage rate from the productivity growth, whether it belongs to a single firm or it is presented through group of industries at macro level. The submissions for increments in the upper wages were rationally proposed by the institution over different periods of times as they are presented in the table. The table 5 above shows the periodical increments in the upper wage limit, which has been made by the institution in the last one decade. After setting up the upper wage at 10,000 in the financial year 2008-09, the institution did not increase the upper limit in consecutive 3 years. The first consecutive years presented in the table in blue shades. On the other hand, the inflation or the consumer price index was increased in double figures with high rates, this rising trend in general price level was expected to be increased in the coming years as well. So the institution comes up with the plan to enhance the upper wage limit for the coming three years in order to overcome the current hyper inflationary pressure on the general price level. So the institution yearly increased the upper wage limit with the economic rationale for the period from 2011-12 to 2013-14, it can be seen in the table with red shades. Till 2013-14 the inflation was drastically increased with the cumulative figure of 89.58 percent which is far greater than the increase in upper wage limit. All the increments made by the institution were in line with the economic indicators prevalent in the country and their impact on the pocket of its beneficiaries. Taking the average household cost as the upper ceiling ensures social protection for workers who are most vulnerable, i.e. earning between the minimum wage and what it costs to maintain basic consumption. This data for this calculation is readily available and can be calculated each year that the HIES is conducted. Oil Price Hike and PKR Parity with US Dollar The average fuel price rose by 100 percent from 2008 to 2013. Petrol prices registered an increase of Rs.40.50 per liter as in 2008 petrol was selling at Rs.62.80 per liter against an average of around Rs.100 per liter current price. High Speed Diesel witnessed an increase of Rs.7.71 per liter with the commodity selling at Rs.38.50 per liter in 2008 against current price of Rs.109.21 per liter (OGRA 2013). In 2018, the oil prices are persistently higher and remain Rs.95.24 to

100. On an average the oil prices doubled and shows approximately 100 percent increase in the prices. Pakistani currency is under severe pressure due to tumbling foreign exchange reserves of the country. PKR has further weakened and Rs.128 to the US dollar in the inter-bank market on Monday 13-07-2018, the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) said in a press statement that "Brace yourself for inflation as the rupee takes a hit". Since December 2017 when the currency was hovering around Rs.105.5 to the dollar, so cumulatively the rupee has lost over 21%. According to Schehzad's 2018 viewpoint 1% devaluation leads to 0.3% incremental in CPI (inflation), Products ranging from basic necessities to luxurious items have started to become expensive. This will mount inflationary pressure on the economy and convince authorities to increase the key interest rate sooner than later as a remedy and purchasing power will reduce. The current trend to inflation with the price hike of US dollar against rupee may put a great pressure on working class. So to overcome the inflationary pressure on them and to maintain the supply of money with the current price level it would be better to sustain the aggregate demand.

14. The above report was submitted in the office of this Court on 1st October 2018 and copy thereof was handed over to the petitioners vide order dated 18th October, 2018 for their examination but despite this fact none of them till the last date of hearing raised any objection to the facts and figures, qua the changes in wage levels and living costs, mentioned in the report. It means that they had no objection thereto. Notwithstanding this fact, I also examined the contents of this report with the documents which were placed on record through C.M.No.02 of 2018 in W.P.No. 58700 of 2017 and found that recommendations made by the Governing Body to the Government for enhancing the wage limits from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.22,000/- per month and daily wage rate from Rs.750/- to Rs.1000/- for the purpose of levy of contribution as envisaged under Section 2 (8) (f) of the Ordinance X of 1965 through the notification dated 15th June, 2017 was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. In fact the report furnished by the respondents, reproduced hereinabove, puts paid to the argument of unreasonableness advanced by the petitioners.

15. The second objection was to the effect that the notification suffered from procedural impropriety. In support of this contention it was argued with vehemence that the principle settled in the Mustafa Impex's case was not followed and thus the notification issued without the approval of the Provincial Cabinet could not be held valid. In this context it is pertinent to observe here that judgment rendered in the Mustafa Impex's case8 was made on 24th May, 2016 and was declaratory in character thus, it could not be applied to any notification issued prior to that date. This view finds support from Fahad Malik's case9 wherein it was held that judgment handed down in the Mustafa Impex's case would operate prospectively. So, the principle of Mustafa Impex's case was applicable to the notification dated 15th June, 2017. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that while issuing this notification the principle of Mustafa Impex's case was strictly followed and the same was issued after due approval of the Cabinet. In this context he presented, during the course of hearing, the summary which was put up before the Cabinet for approval of proposed wage limits and for issuance of disputed notification. Since the notification dated 15th June, 2017 was issued after the approval of the Provincial Cabinet and in accordance with the provisions of Article 105 read with Article 129 of the Constitution, it cannot be held invalid.

16. In the result this petition along with all connected petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs. Appendix Sr.No. Case No. Title 1 W.P.No.58700/17 Nestle Pakistan Limited through Syed Faisal Raza v. Director, PESSI 2 W.P.No.60100/17 Shahzor Feeds through Muhammad Qamar Farooq v. Director PESSI 3 W.P.No.60519/17 Nishat Chunian Limited through Baber Ali Khan v. Director, PESSI 4 W.P.No.61349/17 Murree Brewery Company Limited through Syed Tanveer Hussain Kazmi v. G.O.P. Labour and Human Resource Department 5 W.P.No.61551/17 Messrs Seatle Pvt. Limited through Anwar-ul-Haq v. P.O.P through Secretary Labour and Human Resources 6 W.P.No.61826/17 Nisar Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. etc Through Tariq Nisar v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security etc 7 W.P.No.61843/17 Service Industries Limited through Umer Saeed etc v. Director Punjab Emplyees Social Security etc 8 W.P.No.61773/17 Messrs Riaz Textiles Mill (Private) Ltd. through Amir Najeeb Director v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security etc. 9 W.P.No.62306/17 Superior Textile Mills Limited 32-N Gulberg II Through its Authorized Representative Iftikhar Ali v. Director, PESSI etc 10 W.P.No.62614/17 Messrs Cool Point Industries Pvt Ltd through Fahad Javed v. POP etc 11 W.P.No.62619/17 Messrs Revive Pharmakon Pvt Ltd through Harib Javed v. POP etc 12 W.P.No.62590/17 Aruj Garments Accessories Ltd etc v. Government of Punjab and others 13 W.P.No.62607/17 Messrs Maha Plastic Industries Pvt Ltd through Saud Javed Butt v. POP and others 14 W.P.No62603/17 Messrs Cool Industries Pvt Ltd through Syed Tanveer Mohsin v. POP and others 15 W.P.No.62705/17 Shamas Textile Mills through Farooq Javed and others v. Director PESSI and others 16 W.P.No.62728/17 Alhamd Corporation Pvt Ltd through Bashir Ahmed v. GOP and others. 17 W.P.No.62897/17 M/s Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. through Syed Mohsin Raza Naqvi and others v. Government of the Punjab Labour and Human Resource Department through Secretary and others. 18 W.P.No.63497/17 Haleeb Foods Limited through Kashif Ijaz Shiekh v. GOP, Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 19 W.P.No.63217/17 Messrs Master Offisys (Pvt) Ltd. through Muhammad Iftikhar Hussain v. Government of Punjab and others 20 W.P.No.63225/17 Messrs Procon Engineering Pvt Ltd v. Government of the Punjab and others. 21 W.P.No.63228/17 Messrs Master Synthetic (Pvt) Ltd. through Muhammad Iftikhar Hussain v. Government of the Punjab and others. 22 W.P.No.63231/17 Messrs Master Textile Mills Ltd v. Government of Punjab and others. 23 W.P.No.27503/17 Messrs Northern Toolings Pvt. Ltd v. The Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department 24 W.P.No.27644/17 Messrs Rupafil Ltd. v. Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 25 W.P.No.546/15 Nestle Pakistan Limited v. Director PESSI 26 W.P.No.33800/14 Al-Nasr Textile Limited v. The Govt. of Punjab 27 W.P.No.33755/14 Pak Kuwait Textiles Ltd. Through M. Nawaz Janjua v. GOP etc. 28 W.P.No.14920-15 Messrs Emco Industries Ltd through its Factory Manager v. Director PESSI Lahore and others. 29 W.P.No.28332-14 Kohinoor Mills Limited v. Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 30 W.P.No.21877-14 Mandiali Paper Mills v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 31 W.P.No.18781-16 Messrs Rupali Polyster Limited v. Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 32 W.P.No.63704/17 Siddique Leather Works Pvt. Ltd. through Syed Zafar ud Din Bukhari and others v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security etc. 33 W.P.No.63824/17 Messrs Mughal Iron and Steel Mills Industries Ltd through Parvaiz Iqbal v. Director PESSI and others. 34 W.P.No.63906/17 Naubahar Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. through D.M Administration Malik Dilshad Raza v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security etc. 35 W.P.No.63990/17 North Star Textiles Ltd etc through Amir Sheikh v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 36 W.P. No.64720/17 Messrs Crescent Bahuman Limited through its Factory Manager Shahid Mahmood v. The Director The Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 37 W.P.No.64965/17 Messrs Shezan International Ltd. through Faisal Ahmad Nisar v. The G.O.P through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 38 W.P.No.64961/17 Messrs Fatima Fertilizer Company Ltd. through Majid Khan Lodhi v. The G.O.P through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Deptt. and others. 39 W.P.No.65958/17 Malmo Sweets and Bakers v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 40 W.P.No.65724/17 Messrs Lahore Metal Finishing Pvt. Ltd through Shahid Laal v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution Gulberg and others. 41 W.P.No.66259/17 Messrs Masood Textile Mills Pvt Ltd through Its Manager Muhammad Ihsan Ullah v. Commissioner Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 42 W.P.No.67366/17 Nishat Chunian Power Ltd v. Government of Punjab and others. 43 W.P.No.67826/17 Itthad Chemicals Limited v. Government of the Punjab and others. 44 W.P.No.69162/17 Malmo Foods Pvt. Ltd. through Asstt. Manager HR Shafiq ur Rehman v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 45 W.P. No.69399/17 Messrs Fatima Fertilizer (Pvt) Ltd through Arshad Mehmood v. Govt of Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Dept and others. 46 W.P.No.69833/17 Messrs Comfort Knitwear Pvt Ltd v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 47 W.P.No.70897/17 Honda Atlas cars Pakistan ltd Through Maqsood ur Rahman v. Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Dept etc. 48 W.P.No.70884/17 Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd through Farooq Ahmad Hashmi v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 49 W.P. No.70908/17 Messrs Ejaz Textile Mills Limited and others v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 50 W.P.No.71615/17 Agritech Limited v. Province of Punjab etc 51 W.P. No.72550/17 Messrs Yousaf Weaving Mills Ltd. through Khawaja Muhammad Nadeem v. GOP and others. 52 W.P.No.74493/17 Qarshi Industries (Private) Limited through its Authorized Officer Khalid Mehmood v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Lahore and others. 53 W.P. No.74445/17 US Denim Mills Pvt Ltd through Ch. Abdul Rehman v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Deptt. and others. 54 W.P.No.75006/17 Shahbaz Garments v. Director Punjab Employees etc 55 W.P.No.75003/17 Work Clothing v. Director Punjab Employees etc 56 W.P.No.74906/17 Messrs Waheed Shahzad Plastic Works Pvt Ltd through its Director v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 57 W.P.No.74914/17 Messrs Popular Tape Pvt Ltd through its Director v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 58 W.P.No.74910/17 Messrs Al Rabi International Pvt Ltd through its Director v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 59 W.P.No.75139/17 Dynamic Sportswear Pvt Ltd through Rao Muhammad Shahbaz v. Government of Punjab Labour and Human Resource Department through Secretary and others. 60 W.P.No.76606/17 Newage Cables Pvt Ltd through Amer Bakhat Azam v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Labor and Human Resource Deptt. and others. 61 W.P.No.77146/17 Messrs Jaffer Brothers v. Province of Punjab, and others. 62 W.P.No.77141/17 Messrs Murshid Builders Pvt Ltd v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Labor and Human Resource and others. 63 W.P.No.77131/17 Messrs Bayer Pakistan Pvt Ltd v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Labor and Human Resource and others. 64 W.P.No.77149/17 Messrs Sialkot Dry Port Trust through Muhammad Hanif Khan v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource and others. 65 W.P.No.77177/17 Messrs Murshid Builders v. Province of Punjab and others. 66 W.P.No.77173/17 Messrs Jaffer Business System Pvt Ltd through Khwaja Muhammad Qasim v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource and others. 67 W.P.No.77834/17 Messrs Shezan International Ltd. through Faisal Ahmad Nisar v. GOP and others. 68 W.P.No.77747/17 Quetta Textile Mills Limited through Lal Hussain Mughal and others v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 69 W.P.No.77716/17 Master Sanitary Fittings Industries Ltd through Director Shiekh Mahmood Iqbal v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Deptt and others. 70 W.P.No.77715/17 Messrs Nishter Tiles Ceramics v. Province of Punjab and others. 71 W.P.No.77712/17 Master Sanitary Fittings Industries Ltd through Director Shiekh Mahmood Iqbal v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Deptt and others. 72 W.P.No.78078/17 Thal Industries Corporate through Dilshad Raza v. GOP Labour and Human Resource Department through Secretary Civil Secretariat. 73 W.P.No.78532/17 Dawood Exports Pvt Ltd through General Manager Shehzad Ahmed Sheikh etc v. Government of Punjab Labour and Human Resource Deptt through Secretary and others 74 W.P.No.78783/17 Messrs HRSG Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. through Mr. Shahid Hussain v. P.O.P through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Deptt. Civil Sectt. G.O.P and others. 75 W.P.No.79062/17 Messrs Dawakhana Hakim Ajmal Khan Pvt Ltd and others v. The Director PESSI and others. 76 W.P.No.79174/17 Messrs Kamal Hosiery Mills through Ahsan Kamal and others v. Govt of Punjab through Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 77 W.P.No.79246/17 Big Feed Private Limited through Ahsan ul Haq v. Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department Government of Punjab and others. 78 W.P.No.79269/17 Big Bird Foods (Pvt) Limited through Muhammad Mustafa Kamal v. The Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department GOP. Lahore and others. 79 W.P.No.79243/17 Grand Parent Poultry Private Limited through Haroon Samad v. Secretary Labour and Human Resources Department Government of Punjab and others. 80 W.P.No.79265/17 Big Bird Poultry Breeders (Pvt) Limited through Abdul Basit v. The Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department GOP, Lahore and others. 81 W.P.No.79384/17 Olympia Chemicals Limited through its CFO, Lahore v. Secretary GOP, Labour and Human Resource Department Lahore and others. 82 W.P.No.79623/17 Imran Pipe Mills v. Government of the Punjab and others. 83 W.P.No.79626/17 Rizwan Industrial Corporate Through Muneer Hussain v. GOP Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 84 W.P.No.80228/17 Messrs Engro Food Limited through Awais Mehmood v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 85 W.P.No.80123/17 Messrs Mehboob Tube Mills Through Imran Mehboob v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 86 W.P.No.80381/17 Messrs United Foam (Pvt) Limited through Mohammad Nawaz Jadoon v. The Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 87 W.P.No.81811/17 Messrs Pakarab Fertilizers Limited v. The Government of the Punjab through Secretary Labour and others. 88 W.P.No.82066/17 Suraj Cotton Mills Ltd through Farooq Ahmad and others v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 89 W.P.No.82832/17 Messrs Shakarganj Food Products Ltd through Muhammad Naguib Siagal v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs and others. 90 W.P.No.87133/17 Jauharabad Sugar Mills Ltd. through Amjad Mehmood v. Government of Punjab Labour and Human Resources Department through Secretary and others. 91 W.P.No.87377/17 Sefam Pvt. Limited through Mr. Hamid Zaman v. GOP, Labour and Human Resource Department Lahore and others. 92 W.P.No.87584/17 Messrs Crescent Education Trust through Maj (R) Hameed Ullah Awan v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs and others. 93 W.P.No.87504/17 Messrs Ghani Gases Limited through Farzand Ali v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 94 W.P.No.87528/17 Messrs Ghani Global Glass Limited through its Director and Company Secretary Farzand v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 95 W.P.No.88192/17 Messrs Pioneer Cement Limited through Mohammad Fayyaz Anwar v. GOP, Labour and Human Resource Department through its Secretary and others. 96 W.P.No.88903/17 Messrs Allied Marketing Pvt. Ltd through Ahmad Hasnain v. GOP through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 97 W.P.No.88942/17 Tanveer Cotton Mills (Pvt) Ltd etc through Muhammad Asif Jameel v. Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 98 W.P.No.88939/17 Al-Moiz Industries Ltd Unit (II) etc. through Senior Manager Legal Usman Ehsan Bhalli v. Government of Punjab Labor and Human Resource Deptt through Secretary and others 99 W.P.No.88707/17 Messrs Khaadi SMC Pvt Ltd through Shamoon Sultan v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 100 W.P.No.88906/17 Nishat Hotel and Properties through Khalid Qadeer Qureshi v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 101 W.P.No.90472/17 Sazgar Engineering Working Ltd through Asif Aziz v. GOP through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department and others 102 W.P.No.90646/17 Abdur Rahman Corporation Pvt Ltd through Gaffar Ahmad Qamar etc. v. Govt of Punjab Labour and Human Resources Department and others. 103 W.P.No.91616/17 Messrs Resource Linked Pvt Ltd through Adeel Rasheed v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 104 W.P.No.91675/17 Messrs Ehsan Chappal Store Pvt Ltd through Khurshid Ahmad v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 105 W.P.No.92617/17 C.A.Textile Mills Pvt Limited through Muhammad Adnan v. Government of the Punjab, through Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs Lahore and others. 106 W.P.No.96023/17 Messrs Hillerest Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Province of Punjab and others. 107 W.P.No.96291/17 Messrs Ask Development Pvt. Ltd. through Mr. Nadeem Jahangir v. P.O.P through Secretary L&HRD Civil Secretariat Punjab and others. 108 W.P.No.96911/17 Messrs Al Nasr Taxtiles Ltd Through Tariq Mehmood and others v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 109 W.P.No.98678/17 Beacon Impex Pvt. Ltd. through Eshan Ullah and others v. G.O.P Labour and Human Resource Department through Secretary and others. 110 W.P.No.103658/17 EMCO Industries Limited through Rana Masood Anwar v. Government of Punjab Labour and Human Resource and others. 111 W.P.No.104154/17 Qarshi Foundation Trust through its Authorized Officer Khalid Mehmood v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Lahore and others. 112 W.P.No.104153/17 Qarshi University through its Authorized Officer Khalid Mehmood v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Lahore and others. 113 W.P.No.104269/17 Taiga Apparel Pvt Ltd through Rana Amir Ali Kashif etc v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 114 W.P.No.105913/17 Kamal Industries and others v. Govt of the Punjab and others. 115 W.P.No.106780/17 Diamond Fabrics Ltd through Amjad Ali and others v. Director Public Employees Social Security and others. 116 W.P.No.108087/17 Ashraf Sugar Mills Limited and others v. Province of Punjab and others. 117 W.P.No.112934/17 Mandiali Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. through Mr. Sheikh Ali Abbas v. Govt of Punjab and others. 118 W.P.No.117077/17 ICI Pakistan Ltd v. POP and others. 119 W.P.No.119850/17 Messrs Hascol Petroleum Ltd v. Province of Punjab and others. 120 W.P.No.123466/17 Shafi Pvt Ltd through Muhammad Imran and others v. Director Punjab Employees and others. 121 W.P.No.123532/17 Pak Elektron Limited (PEL) through its G.M v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Lahore and others. 122 W.P.No.130567/18 Nabeel Industries Pvt Ltd through Lal Hussain Mughal v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 123 W.P.No.132450/18 Suraj Cotton Mills Ltd through Sadaqat Ali Khan and otehrs v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Lahore and others. 124 W.P.No.133810/18 Nishat Linen Pvt Ltd through Badar Ul Hassan and others v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Lahore and others. 125 W.P.No.134781/18 Messrs Ghazi Fabrics International Ltd. through Authorized Representative v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 126 W.P.No.135631/18 Ellcot Spinning Mills Ltd through Tariq Zafar Bajwa and others v. Director General Employees Social Security Institution and others. 127 W.P.No.135666/18 JWD Sugar Mills Limited and others v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Labour & Resource Department and others. 128 W.P.No.136261/18 Messrs Crescent Fibers Ltd. through Humayun Maqbool v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others 129 W.P.No.136351/18 Messrs Habeeb Haseeb Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd Through Muhammad Haseeb v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 130 W.P.No.136873/18 Highnoon Laboratories Ltd through Ms. Azmeh Khan v. POP, Through its Secretary Labour and Human Resource and others. 131 W.P.No.151230/18 M/S Combined Fabrics Ltd and others v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 132 W.P.No.151733/18 M/s Phoenix Security Service Pvt Ltd through its Manager v. Punjab Employees Social Security Institution etc 133 W.P.No.152165/18 Resham Textile Industries Ltd through Muhammad Arshad Saeed etc v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others 134 W.P.No.152127/18 H.A. Fibres Pvt Ltd through Syed Ashher Ali v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security etc 135 W.P.No.150140/18 Messrs Maple Leaf Cement Fact v. Government of Punjab and others. 136 W.P.No.150165/18 Siara Textile Mills Pvt. v. Govt. of The Punjab and others. 137 W.P.No.154198/18 Messrs Colony Textile Mills Ltd v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 138 W.P.No.155498/18 Messrs Ejaz Textile Mills Limited and others v. Director of Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 139 W.P.No.156095/18 Naveena Industries Ltd v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 140 W.P.No.156785/18 Ittehad Private Ltd through Asim Maqsood and others v. Director of Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 141 W.P.No.160005/18 Hira Textile Mills through Nadeem Ishtiaq and others v. Director of Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 142 W.P.No.159922/18 The Crescent Textile Mills Ltd v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution etc 143 W.P.No.160983/18 Messrs Gharibwal Cement Ltd through Reza Awan v. Government of Punajb through Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 144 W.P.No.161770/18 Messrs Ultra Pack Pvt. Ltd through Authorized Person v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 145 W.P.No.162584/18 Messrs Chakwal Textile Mills Ltd through Mohammad Amman etc v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 146 W.P.No.162391/18 Sapphire Fibres Limited and others v. Director of Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 147 W.P.No.163177/18 Kamal Limited through Zafar Iqbal v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 148 W.P.No.163405/18 Nishat Chunian Power Ltd through Farrukh Afzal v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 149 W.P.No.163639/18 Messrs Best Fibres Pvt Ltd through Mansoor Zafar v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 150 W.P.No.163939/18 Pak Kuwait Textiles Ltd Through Tariq Mehmood and others v. Director of Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 151 W.P.No.164036/18 Messrs S Fazalilahi and Sons Pvt Ltd through Muhammad Afzal Bajwa v. Province of Punjab and others. 152 W.P.No.164368/18 Alam Cotton Mills (Pvt) Ltd through Hammad Shafiq Alam v. Director PESSI and others. 153 W.P.No.166947/18 Nishat Hospitality Pvt Ltd through Badar Ul Hassan v. Director of Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 154 W.P.No.167802/18 Indus Lyallpur Limited v. Director of Punjab Employees Social Security Lahore and others. 155 W.P.No.167983/18 Amtex Limited v. Province of Punjab and others. 156 W.P.No.168535/18 Messrs Crescent Bahuman Limited through its Factory Manager Shahid Mahmood v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 157 W.P.No.168378/18 Nishat Dairy Pvt Ltd through Badar Ul Hassan v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 158 W.P.No.169208/18 Bulleh Shah Packaging and others v. GOP and others. 159 W.P.No.169518/18 Messrs E-Sqaure Pvt Ltd through Zameer Uddin v. Province of Punjab etc 160 W.P.No.169778/18 Messrs Active Apparel International Pvt Ltd v. The Secretary GOP, Labour and Human Resource Department Lahore and others. 161 W.P.No.169786/18 Packages Limited through its Factory Manager v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Department of Labour and others. 162 W.P.No.170567/18 Messrs Kohat Cement Company Limited through Aizaz Mansoor Sheikh v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 163 W.P.No.170397/18 The Professional Employers Ltd through Salman Saeed and others v. The Punjab Employees Social Security Institute and others. 164 W.P.No.170558/18 Kamal Factory through Anjum Zafar and others v. Province of Punjab Labour and Human Resource Department through Secretary and others. 165 W.P.No.170752/18 Style Textile Pvt. Ltd and others v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 166 W.P.No.171314/18 Lahore Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Pvt. Ltd and others v. Province of Punjab and others. 167 W.P.No.172136/18 College of Tourism and Hotel Management through Shafiq Ahmed v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 168 W.P.No.172880/18 Ahmed Oriental Textile Mills Ltd through Athar Nisar v. Province of Punjab through Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 169 W.P.No.173111/18 Messrs Masood Textile Mills Limited through Arslan Khalid and others v. Commissioner Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 170 W.P.No.175247/18 Azgard Nine Limited and others v. Director of Punjab Employees Social Security Lahore and others 171 W.P.No.176567/18 Aruj Garments Accessories Ltd Through Muhammad Farooq Azam v. Province of Punjab Labour and Human Resource and others 172 W.P.No.176684/18 Messrs Sapphire Retail Ltd through Nabeel Abdullah v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 173 W.P.No.178268/18 Messrs Pakistan Fruit Juice Company Pvt Ltd through Ikram Elahi v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 174 W.P.No.178278/18 Khalid Shafique Spinning Mills Ltd and others v. POP and others. 175 W.P.No.180992/18 Messrs Ismail Industries Limited v. POP and others. 176 W.P.No.180553/18 Messrs Akram Cotton Mills Ltd through Mushtaq Ahmad v. Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 177 W.P.No.180622/18 Messrs Shezan International Ltd. through Faisal Ahmad Nisar v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 178 W.P.No.181924/18 Messrs Hudabiya Engineering Co Pvt Ltd and others v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 179 W.P.No.183166/18 Messrs Cotton Web Ltd through Naeem Iqbal v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 180 W.P.No.186034/18 Eastern Spinning Mills Ltd etc. v. POP and others. 181 W.P.No.186156/18 E-Vision Manufacturing Ltd etc v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 182 W.P.No.186292/18 Escorts Advanced Textiles Pvt Ltd through Arshad Kamal v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 183 W.P.No.186458/18 Messrs Pakistan Fruit Juice Company Pvt Ltd through Ikram Elahi v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 184 W.P.No.186677/18 Messrs Crescent Textile Mills Ltd through Sadiq Saleem v. Province of Punjab through Secretary and others. 185 W.P.No.186713/18 Messrs Mr. Fabrics Pvt Ltd through Shahzad Nazir v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 186 W.P.No.187450/18 Ravi Autos Sundar Pvt Ltd through Ali Raza v. GOP through Secretary and others. 187 W.P.No.189471/18 Kamal Textile Mills (Pvt) Limited through Zahid Saleem v. POP and others. 188 W.P.No.194374/18 Messrs Muller and Phipps Pakistan Pvt Ltd through Mian Atif Iqbal v. Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 189 W.P.No.198420/18 Al Moiz Industries Limited Unit II and others v. GOP and others. 190 W.P.No.198423/18 Thal Industries Corporation Limited v. GOP and others. 191 W.P.No.199722/18 Sefam Pvt Limited through Amer Riaz v. Govt of Punjab and others. 192 W.P.No.199860/18 Sarena Industries and Embroidery Mills Pvt Ltd etc v. Govt of Punjab and others. 193 W.P.No.205210/18 Messrs J and P Coats Pakistan Pvt Ltd v. POP and others. 194 W.P.No.205207/18 Messrs Fulcrum Pvt Ltd v. POP and others. 195 W.P.No.205843/18 Arsam Pulp and Paper Board Industries Pvt Ltd v. GOP and others. 196 W.P.No.211602/18 Messrs SRC Pvt Ltd v. The Director, Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 197 W.P.No.213989/18 Naubahar Bottling Company Pvt Ltd v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 198 W.P.No.214002/18 Murree Brewery Company Ltd v. Govt of Punjab Labour and Human Resource Department and others. 199 W.P.No.214582/18 Hi Tech Poultry and others v. Secretary GOP and others. 200 W.P.No.215395/18 Messrs Tara Imperial Industries Pvt Ltd v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution etc 201 W.P.No.215409/18 Messr/s Coral Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 202 W.P.No.215692/18 Kohinoor Factory (Newly Kamal Industries) v. POP and others. 203 W.P.No.216076/18 Nafeesa Textiles Ltd through Salman Khalid v. POP and others. 204 W.P.No.217991/18 Suraj Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd through Farooq Ahmad v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 205 W.P.No.221872/18 Fazal Farms Private Limited v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 206 W.P.No.222400/18 Shaheen Air International Limited through its Senior Manager Legal v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Labour and Human Resource and others. 207 W.P.No.222801/18 Messrs Ethical Laboratories Pvt Ltd v. POP and others. 208 W.P.No.225057/18 Shahtaj Sugar Mills Ltd v. Province of Punjab and others. 209 W.P.No.226376/18 FICO Electric Pvt Ltd v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution Gujranwala and others. 210 W.P.No.226378/18 Messrs Climax Engineering Company Ltd v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security and others. 211 W.P.No.226377/18 FICO Hi Tech Pvt Ltd v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security etc 212 W.P.No.227041/18 Messrs Bless Engineering Company Pvt Ltd v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution Gujranwala and others. 213 W.P.No.228329/18 Messrs Tara Crops Science Pvt. Ltd. through Director v. The Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution Gulberg Office and others. 214 W.P.No.228885/18 Ambition Apparel through Imran Amjad v. Director Punjab Employees and others. 215 W.P.No.240403/18 Abu Bakar Textile Mills Ltd and others v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 216 W.P.No.254378/18 Hamza Sugar Mills Limited v. Government of the Punjab and others. 217 W.P.No.254380/18 Madina Sugar Mills Limited v. Government of the Punjab and others. 218 W.P.No.254462/18 Tayyab Textile Mills Limited and others v. Government of the Punjab and others. 219 W.P.No.256479/18 AA Spinning Mills Limited v. Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 220 W.P.No.243836/18 Packages Construction Ltd v. GOP and others. 221 W.P.No.246063/18 Messrs Jubilant Food Pvt Ltd and others v. Director Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 222 W.P.No.250860/18 Sheikh Soap Factory v. Province of Punjab Labour and Human Resources and others. 223 W.P.No.713/19 Sadaqat Limited and others v. Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 224 W.P.No.6735/19 Messrs Kohinoor Spinning Mills Ltd through Muhammad Naveed v. Govt of the Punjab and others. 225 W.P.No.7955/19 Popular Sugar Mills Limited through Ehsan ul Haq and others v. Province of Punjab and others. 226 W.P.No.11122/19 Messrs Security General Insurance Company Limited through Farrukh Aleem v. Government of the Punjab and others. 227 W.P.No.13312/19 Kohinoor Mills Ltd Through Muhammad Ejaz Virk v. Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and others. 228 W.P.No. 14587/19 Diamond Pain Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Mr. Farooq Ahmad v. Government of The Punjab and others. 229 W.P.No.17779/19 Messrs Butt Sweets and Bakers v. Ministry of Labour and Human Resources and others. 230 W.P.No.187952/18 Messrs Faisal Hospital through Muhammad Munir Zafar v PESSI and others. 231 W.P.No.23764/19 Interwood Mobile Pvt Ltd through G.M. Abdul Latif v. Govt. of Punjab and others. 232 W.P.No.229003/18 Seatle Pvt Ltd v. POP and others. 233 W.P.No.234768/18 Paramount Distributor v. Government of the Punjab and others. 234 W.P.No.180695/18 Fauji Fertilizer Company Ltd. v. PESSI, and others. 235 W.P.No.14589/19 Honda Township Pvt Ltd through Mr. Adnan Ahmad v. Director, PESSI 236 W.P.No.257989/18 Messrs Lahore Carpet Manufacturing Co. v. Director, PESSI 237 W.P.No.23760/19 Interwood Mobel Pvt Ltd. through G.M. Abdul Latif Malik v. Government of Punjab, and others. 238 W.P.No.150141/18 Messrs Wisal Kamal Fabrics v. Director, PESSI 239 W.P.No.193846/18 Sohail Textiles Mills Ltd v Director, PESSI 240 W.P.No.27151/19 Messrs Shafi Spinning Mills Ltd v. Director, PESSI and others. KMZ/N-19/L Petitions dismisse