2005 PLP 1687 (SCMR)
DIRECTOR, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS, MULTAN and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs MONNOWAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1687 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | DIRECTOR, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS, MULTAN and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs MONNOWAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1687 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1687 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1687 (SCMR) (DIRECTOR, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS, MULTAN and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs MONNOWAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Mujahid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for petitioners.
- Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th March, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments dated 18-2-2002 and 26-2-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in F.A.Os. Nos.8 to 10 of 2002 and 27 of 2002).
S. 23(1)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.25 & 185(3)
Issuance of notices for increased demand by Institution to employers
Appellants (employers) took exception to such demand being discriminatory for having been made from employers, who had not approached Courts against earlier demand notices issued under S.23(1) of Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965
Appeal filed by appellants was accepted by High Court
Such act on the part of Institution was certainly violative of Art.25 of the Constitution
High Court had not committed illegality in giving same treatment to appellants (employers) as had been meted out to other employers placed in similar circumstances
Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal. Shamas Textile Mills and others v. Province of Punjab and 2 others 1999 SCMR 1477 ref.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgments dated 18-2-2002 and 26-2-2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, allowed the F.A.Os. filed by the respondents in terms already laid down in F.A.O. No.384 of 2001 decided on 14-1-2002. The facts briefly narrated are that the petitioner institution issued demand notices under section 23(1) of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), for increased demand in respect of Special Allowance paid to the employees. Such notices were challenged by different employers before the Lahore High Court and thereafter the matter was set at rest through a judgment reported as Shams Textile Mills and others v. Province of Punjab and 2 others 1999 SCMR 1477. Subsequent to the above judgment the impugned notices were issued for the increased demand by the petitioner institution to certain employers. Messrs Ghazi Fabrics Limited filed F.A.O. No.384 of 2001 took exception to the aforesaid demand being discriminatory as the said increase was not demanded from the employers who approached the Lahore High Court as well as this Court. Messrs Ghazi Fabrics Limited succeeded and the F.A.O. No.384 of 2001 was accepted through an order dated 14-1-2002. The petitioner department challenged the said judgment through Civil Petition No.905/L of 2002 along with many other civil petitions before this Court, which were dismissed by a learned Bench of this Court vide its order, dated 4-2-2003. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has failed to persuade us to take a different view as the criteria put by him does not suit the Institution that the increased demand is made from those employers only who have not approached the Courts. This act on the part of the petitioners is certainly violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. No illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in giving the same treatment to the respondent employers as has been meted out to other employers placed in similar circumstances. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petitions being devoid of any merit are hereby dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./D-39/S Leave refused.