1994 PLP 503 (PLC)

This case was remanded to the learned Social Security Court by a judgment of this Court dated 9‑1‑1990. As per terms of the said judgment, the parties were allowed to lead evidence to establish whether for the period in question, that is to say from 26‑7‑1984 to 28‑11‑1984, the medical facilities provided by the respondent to its workers were in accordance with the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution PLD 1977 SC

197. The relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in the said case were as follows:‑‑ "(4) The arrears of contributions may not be realised from an employer for the period during which he had made alternative arrangements for affording the necessary benefits to the employees and had made a contribution in that behalf at least equal to the rate prescribed under the Ordinance and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. Otherwise, the realisation of arrears would mean a double levy on the employer, without any corresponding benefits to his employees. However, the existence of any such adequate alternative arrangements must be established to the satisfaction of the Social Security Institution."

2. After the remand of the case to the learned Social Security Court, the evidence of Muhammad Yousuf and Syed Iqbal Shah, Commercial Manager and Security Officer of the respondent and appellant respectively was recorded by the learned Social Security Court.

3. As would appear from the impugned judgment of the learned Social Security Court, Syed Iqbal Shah, the Security Officer admitted during his cross -examination that the Institution had not provided any benefits under the Social Security Scheme to the employees of the respondent‑company. Admittedly, the respondent was liable to contribute 7% towards the social security benefits of the employees. Such benefits on an average were worked out to be Rs. 15 per month whereas admittedly the respondent was providing medical and other benefits of over Rs. 140 per month. Consequently, when admittedly the Institution at the relevant time was not providing any benefits under the said scheme to the employees of the respondent and on the other hand the respondent was already paying much more than what it was liable to contribute under the Social Security Ordinance to its employees, the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Social Security Court do not appear to be open to exception. No doubt, according to the observations made by the Supreme Court earlier reproduced in this judgment, the benefits received by the employees from the employer were to be matched with those provided by the Social Security Institution under the said Ordinance but in view of the said admission made by Syed Iqbal Shah, it cannot be said that the benefits received by the employees directly from the employer were lesser than those provided by the appellant. There is, therefore, no force in this appeal.

4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Social Security Court is upheld. H.B.T./S‑1056/K Appeal dismissed.