1996 PLP 415 (PLC)

Provided that the Commissioner may refer such complaint to a Local Director or any other officer of the Institution for investigation or report and decide the case upon such report after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard." . Rule 7‑of the said Regulations states:‑‑ , "The Commissioner, may by an order in writing, authorise the Vice? Commissioner to exercise the powers of the Commissioner for deciding the complaints." Rule 8 of the said Regulations reads:‑‑ ? "The Commissioner or the Vice‑Commissioner exercising the powers of the Commissioner, may, on new facts being brought to his notice by an application made to him in this behalf by the complainant review any of his predecessor‑in‑office within 60 days of the passing of such order and in so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm the same. Provided that the Commissioner or the Vice‑Commissioner on discovery of new and important matter or evidence may at any time suo Motu review a decision passed by himself or any of his predecessor‑in?-office Provided further that no order shall be reviewed without giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence in support or against the decision as the case may be." A perusal of the above provisions of the Regulations would show that the Commissioner has been authorised under section 80(l) of the West Pakistan Social Security Ordinance, 1965, by the Governing Body of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution to decide the complaint and also has been authorised either to hear himself or to refer such complaint to a Local Director or any other officer of the Institution for investigation or report and decide the case and further that he has also been empowered to authorise Vice Commissioner to exercise powers of Commissioner for deciding the complaints, so also he and Vice‑Commissioner to review any order passed by him or any of his predecessor‑in‑office. Learned counsel for the respondent has in reply to the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon M/s. Ansar Brothers, Multan v. The Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution, Lahore and another PLD 1977 Lah. 651 where my learned brother Judge‑in‑Chambers at page 656 has observed:‑‑ "In view of the facts that the Commissioner as the Chief Executive has the authority to act for or on behalf of the Institution, in the nature of things, he must be treated to have the power to entertain complaints under section 57 and to adjudicate upon them. The provision in the Regulation of 1973 to this effect is neither inconsistent with section 57 nor in excess of the regulation‑making power given by section 80(2)(xxvi). The name of the Commissioner had been recorded as a substitute for the Institution in order to make it clear to the persons concerned to know as to who is the authority to act for and on behalf of or virtually for all practical purposes as the Institution. Even if there be some merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the provision about such application being made to or the same to be dealt with by the Commissioner can be validated under section

77. This section authorises a Governing Body to delegate its powers end functions in relation to any matter and subject to any condition as may be specified to Governing Body is for all practical purposes, the 'Institution', the provision regarding the Commissioner in the Regulation of 1973 can be treated to be delegation of powers by the Governing Body to the Commissioner. On this ground also the regulations are justified. " In view of the Sindh Employees' Social Security (Procedure for Deciding Complaints and Review of Decisions) Regulations, 1983 and above ?cited provision of law and the decision reported in M/s. Ansar Brothers PLD 1977 Lah. 651 the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Commissioner was not authorised to hear the complaint has no merit and substance. Next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that unless appellants' name is notified they were not liable to the contribution under the law. This contention has also no merit. The learned counsel for the respondent has made reliance upon an unreported judgment of this Court passed in M.A. No.60 of 1983 (Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution v. Amin Agencies Limited) whereby the reported judgment M/s. Amin Agencies Limited, Kotri v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, Kotri PIJ 1979 Tribunal Case (Labour) 24 cited by the learned counsel for the appellants was set aside by a Division Bench. Page 6 of the above unreported judgment runs:‑‑ .....?????? Consequently, the new owner continues to be liable to make contributions under the said notification and no further notification is required. The Ordinance being introduced for the benefit of certain employees of the notified establishments must be construed in a manner so as to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy." Reference is also made to a judgment passed by Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No. K‑40 of 1981 (Al‑Muhammadi Tiles Industry v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution) where their Lordships of Supreme Court at page 9 of the judgment observed: " ????????? The employer and the employees may change, their identities may differ from time to time but as long as the establishment remained the same, the liability under the Ordinance once the requisite notification had appeared, could not be avoided either by discontinuing the services of the employees or by changing the number or the identity of the employer. " Reference is also made to Pakistan Shipping Corporation, Karachi v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachi 1981 PLC 9 where my learned brother Judge‑in‑Chambers at page 14 observed:‑‑ ??????????? It is, therefore, clear that the liability to pay contribution once arising under the provisions of section 20 does not cease by mere change of ownership of the establishment etc. and could continue to be payable, in respect of every employee employed therein. I might refer at this stage to the observations of the Supreme Court as to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Ordinance in Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution PLD 1977 SC

197. Their Lordships observed that this legislation is a beneficial or remedial legislation whose object is the amelioration of the lot of the working classes and as such it should be 'so constructed as to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief otherwise the object of the legislation would be frustrated. " The above case‑law makes it clear that the appellant's Establishment and Fashion World Apparel are one and same Establishment and the mere change of the name Establishment would not absolve the appellants from the liability imposed under the law on the basis of notification which was issued and the said liability could not be avoided either by discontinuing the services of employees or by changing the number or the identity of the employer. Accordingly the appellants' plea that appellants have not been notified, therefore, they were not liable to the contribution imposed under the Ordinance has no merit. In view of aforesaid reasonings and the case‑law cited the appeal has no merit which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T/H‑3/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.