1994 PLP 269 (PLC)
Messrs MONTGOMERY FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE
| Citation | 1994 PLP 269 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Mian Allah Nawaz, J |
| Parties | Messrs MONTGOMERY FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 269 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 269 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Mian Allah Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 269 (PLC) (Messrs MONTGOMERY FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javed Altaf for Appellant.
- Muhammad Mujahid Ahmad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 2(25)(30)‑‑‑Contribution‑‑‑Liability ' of establishment to make‑‑ Adjudication by Court of liability of establishment to make contribution without rendering finding whether employees in respect of whom contribution was demanded, were secured persons under S.2(25)(30) was illegal and could not sustain.
Judgment & Decree
Javed Altaf for Appellant. Muhammad Mujahid Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1993. This judgment will dispose of FA.Os. Nos.141 and 178 of 1990 as these arise out of common background and involve identical questions of law. The former appeal has been filed by Montgomery Flour and General Mills while the latter has been filed by the Commissioner, Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution, Lahore. Both of these appeals call in question the validity of the judgment rendered by the learned Judge Social Security Lahore, dated 12‑5‑1990.
2. A few facts, relevant for the disposal of these appeals, are:‑‑ that Montgomery Flour and General Mills ('Pvt.) Limited is an establishment under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). Pursuant to the report of Director Punjab Employees Social security Institution (shortly stated as the Institution), a notice was issued to the aforesaid establishment for payment of an amount of Rs.2,11,929.84 for less pay contribution. Feeling aggrieved from the above notice, the establishment lodged a complaint which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide an order dated 4‑6‑1989. On appeal, the learned Judge Social Security vide a decision dated 12‑5‑1990 partly allowed the appeal and adjudged that the establishment was liable only to make contribution for contract labour and not for over time, club workers and leave encashment. Feeling aggrieved both the Commissioner of Institution as well as Montgomery Flour and General Mills has preferred these appeals.
3. After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the parties agreed that the decision of the Court below was not correct as far as over payment and leave encashmerit was concerned. The learned counsel agreed that the decision of the Court below to this extent be set aside. The learned counsel further agreed that on the item of contract labour and. club workers item, the learned Court below had not determined the question in correct perspective and had rendered no finding as to whether the alleged employees in respect of whom contribution was demanded were secured persons within the term of subsections (25) and (30) of section 2 of the Ordinance.
4. In view of above submissions and with the consent of the parties, the decision of the Court below is set aside in respect of leave encashment and over time. It is held that the Montgomery Flour and General Mills is liable to make contribution with respect to the item of over payment as well as leave encashment. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of amount being claimed in respect of contractual labour and student club. To this extent, the case is being remanded to the carried. Social Security Court who shall decide these items after hearing the parties and in accordance with law. To the above extent, the appeal filed by the establishment shall be deemed to be pending. H.B.T./M‑1317/L Order accordingly.