2003 PLP 399 (PLC)

GROUNDS BEFORE THE JUDGE SOCIAL, SECURITY COURT, PUNJAB, LAHORE (i) That the appellant had sought opportunity to produce evidence before learned respondent No.2 but the prayer has been declined without any reasons. The impugned order is reduced to a case of no evidence. (ii) That the learned respondent No.2 failed to exercise the jurisdiction vesting in him required to set aside the demand notice dated 10-5-1994. (iii) That the order of learned respondent No.2 suffers from the effect of incongruity. (iv) That the learned respondent No.2 has not even cared to consider the judgment of the Superior Courts of this country which were relied upon by the appellant which include the judgment in the case of Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. and another v. Sindh Employees Social Security (PLD 1977 SC 197) and unreported judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Noor Textile C.P. 1219-L of 1993 confirming the orders of Hon'ble Lahore High Court whereby the increase levied by the Social Security. Institution was declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. (v) That the change of date of hearing of the complaint as well as the manner in which the complaints were heard smacks of unwarranted haste and renders the impugned order as without jurisdiction. (vi) That the impugned order has been passed on extraneous consideration. (vii) That the learned respondent No.2 has failed to appreciate that the impugned demand notice was void, without jurisdiction and was lable to interference under section 59 of Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (Supra).

12. That the appellant has already submitted an application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order dated 19-6-1995 but no date whatsoever has been given in writing or orally, for delivery of the copy thereof.

13. That the appellant reserves the right to raise further grounds against the impugned orders on the receipt of copy of the impugned order dated 19-6-1995." Government of the Punjab Labour Department Notification The 19th October, 1993 No. Lab-V/2-15/93. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (3) of section I of the Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, No.X of 1965). The Governor of the Punjab is pleased to apply with effect from 15 August, 1993 of the date of publication of Gazette Notification whichever is latter, the said Ordinance to the employers and employees of the establishments mentioned in the schedule annexed hereto and or any other unit functioning in the premises of these establishments shall be entitled to benefits provided in section 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the said Ordinance. S. No. Name of the Establishment.

1. M/s. Rupali Limited. 13-4, KM, Sheikhupura, Sharqpur Road, In case the aforesaid provisions of law be read together then it is crystal clear that once a notification is issued under section 1(3) of the Ordinance, notifying the areas, classes of persons, and Industries or establishments m which the Ordinance, was to apply then the obligation of the employers spelt, out in sections 20 and 21 come into play and it is incumbent upon the employer to make the necessary contribution, keeping the necessary record and furnish the necessary returns as may be prescribed by the Social Security Institution under Rules or Regulations made in the Ordinance. It is also settled principle of law that obligations under the Ordinance are not dependent upon any action to be taken or initiated on the part of the Institution. On the contrary the appellants are statutory obligation incurred under the relevant provisions of the Social Security Ordinance. Meaning thereby failure on the part of the Institution td make any demand in respect of the contribution in question did not absolve the respondent from filing correct return and marking payment of contribution in time after issuing a notification by the respondents under section 1(3) of the Ordinance, on 19th, October, 1993 which was duly published in Part-I of the Punjab Weekly Gazette November 10, 1993 at page 1032. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified the laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- Kohinor Chemical Co. Ltd. and another v. Sind Employees Social Security (PLD 1977 SC 197). Sindh Employees Social Security Institution v. Dawood Cotton Mills Limited (PLD 1988 SC 1) Sindh Employees Social Security Institution v. Rashid Textile Mills Limited (1980 PLC 1245). Sindh Employees Social Security Institution v. Silvarring Industries Limited, Karachi (1979 PLC 1062) It is also settled proposition of law that the plea which was not taken in the grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Court then the same could not be taken at the time of haring the second appeal before this Court. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down in City bank N.A. v. Riaz Ahmad (2000 CLC 847). In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the judgment of the First Appellate Court, therefore, the appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed. S.A.K./R-240/L Appeal dismissed.