2011 PLC 34 (PLP)
PUNJAB SEED CORPORATION through Managing Director Versus EMPLOYEE'S OLD-AGE BENEFIT INSTITUTION through Chairman Board of Trustees and 3 others
| Citation | 2011 PLC 34 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Rashid Sheikhs, J |
| Parties | PUNJAB SEED CORPORATION through Managing Director Versus EMPLOYEE'S OLD-AGE BENEFIT INSTITUTION through Chairman Board of Trustees and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Employees' Old Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLC 34 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Employees' Old Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLC 34 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Mamoon Rashid Sheikhs, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLC 34 (PLP) (PUNJAB SEED CORPORATION through Managing Director Versus EMPLOYEE'S OLD-AGE BENEFIT INSTITUTION through Chairman Board of Trustees and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Hamid Ullah Khan for Petitioner.
- Kashif Ali Chaudhry for Respondents.
- 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition inter alia on the grounds that the impugned order, dated 25-1-2010 and the consequential sealing of the petitioner's pre-store No.3 at the petitioner's plant at Sahiwal on 7-5-2010 has been carried out in accordance with law and in consonance of the directions given by this Court on 29-9-2009 in Writ Petition No.4838 of 2009. Further submits, without prejudice to the above, that the petitioner has an equally efficacious, alternative remedy by way of filing a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority under section 33 of the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the alternative remedy. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Further submits that if the petitioner were to approach the Authority it would have ample opportunity to defend itself and in case of an adverse order it would not only have the remedy of an appeal but also of a review and if the petitioner still feels aggrieved it can approach this court under the constitutional jurisdiction. Relies on Rupali Polyester Ltd. v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and another 1991 PLC 318, Ujala Cotton Mills v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 1994 PLC 560, Mubarak Ali and Sons v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 1994 PLC 686, Messrs Shamas Textile Mills v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 1994 PLC 694 and University of Faisalabad through Authorized Representative v. Regional Head Faisalabad North Region Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution, Faisalabad 2008 PLC 161. It is further contended that the petitioner has been given several notices by the respondents for registration under the Act, ibid, however, despite service of notices the petitioner has to date failed to get itself registered as required under the law.
- 2-A. The learned counsel for the petitioner controverts the stance of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and submits that the petition is maintainable. The respondents have violated the order of this Court, dated 29-9-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4838 of 2009. The said order is quite clear, however, the respondents have deliberately misinterpreted it to their own advantage. The impugned notice, dated 25-1-2010 and the act of sealing of the petitioner's store is patently illegal and against the order of this Court. Further submits that the various seeds being stored at the store in question have a very short shelf life and would perish/rot away during the ensuing hot weather. Immediate de-sealing of the store is called for under the circumstances. Relies on Abdul Latif v. The Government of West Pakistan and others PLD 1962 SC 384, Pir Muhammad v. Government of Sindh and 3 others 1990 MLD 869 and Pakistan Burmah Shell, Limited v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 2004 PLC 63.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 11 & 33
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner/establishment having failed to get it registered under provisions of S.11 of Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, its premises was sealed
Petitioner had an equally efficacious, alternative remedy by way of filing a complaint before Adjudicating Authority under S.33 of Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, but it had approached High Court without exhausting the alternative remedy
Rights and obligations of the parties would be adequately safeguarded, if the petitioner was to file complaint before the Adjudicating Authority as envisaged under S.33 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976
Petitioner having not availed equally efficacious remedy provided to it under the law before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, constitutional petition was not maintainable
However, as seeds stored in the sealed premises, were liable to perish, it was ordered that the store of the petitioner be desealed immediately with the direction that the petitioner would approach the authority concerned; and if so approached, pending disposal of the complaint of the petitioner, no coercive measures would be taken against the petitioner. Rupali Polyester Ltd. v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and another 1991 PLC 318; Ujala Cotton Mills v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 1994 PLC 560; Mubarak Ali and Sons v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 1994 PLC 686; Messrs Shamas Textile Mills v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 1994 PLC 694; University of Faisalabad through Authorized Representative v. Regional Head Faisalabad North Region Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution, Faisalabad 2008 PLC 161; Abdul Latif v. The Government of West Pakistan and others PLD 1962 SC 384; Pir Muhammad v. Government of Sindh and 3 others 1990 MLD 869 and Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 2004 PLC 63 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.
In view of the urgency of the matter, I intend to dispose of this petition with the consent of the parties as a Pacca matter on the basis of the available record.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition inter alia on the grounds that the impugned order, dated 25-1-2010 and the consequential sealing of the petitioner's pre-store No.3 at the petitioner's plant at Sahiwal on 7-5-2010 has been carried out in accordance with law and in consonance of the directions given by this Court on 29-9-2009 in Writ Petition No.4838 of 2009. Further submits, without prejudice to the above, that the petitioner has an equally efficacious, alternative remedy by way of filing a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority under section 33 of the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the alternative remedy. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Further submits that if the petitioner were to approach the Authority it would have ample opportunity to defend itself and in case of an adverse order it would not only have the remedy of an appeal but also of a review and if the petitioner still feels aggrieved it can approach this court under the constitutional jurisdiction. Relies on Rupali Polyester Ltd. v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and another 1991 PLC 318, Ujala Cotton Mills v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 1994 PLC 560, Mubarak Ali and Sons v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 1994 PLC 686, Messrs Shamas Textile Mills v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 1994 PLC 694 and University of Faisalabad through Authorized Representative v. Regional Head Faisalabad North Region Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution, Faisalabad 2008 PLC
161. It is further contended that the petitioner has been given several notices by the respondents for registration under the Act, ibid, however, despite service of notices the petitioner has to date failed to get itself registered as required under the law. 2-A. The learned counsel for the petitioner controverts the stance of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and submits that the petition is maintainable. The respondents have violated the order of this Court, dated 29-9-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4838 of 2009. The said order is quite clear, however, the respondents have deliberately misinterpreted it to their own advantage. The impugned notice, dated 25-1-2010 and the act of sealing of the petitioner's store is patently illegal and against the order of this Court. Further submits that the various seeds being stored at the store in question have a very short shelf life and would perish/rot away during the ensuing hot weather. Immediate de-sealing of the store is called for under the circumstances. Relies on Abdul Latif v. The Government of West Pakistan and others PLD 1962 SC 384, Pir Muhammad v. Government of Sindh and 3 others 1990 MLD 869 and Pakistan Burmah Shell, Limited v. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution and others 2004 PLC 63.
3. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the order of this Court, dated 29-9-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4838 of 2009 and the factual controversy as to service of previous notices to the petitioner I find that the rights and obligations of the parties would be adequately safeguarded if the petitioner were to file a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority as envisaged under section 33 of the Act, ibid, as in my view the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy provided to it under the law which has not been availed of by the petitioner before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. In view of the above and more importantly the fact that the seeds stored at the petitioner's plant are liable to perish it is ordered that the store of the petitioner be de-sealed immediately. It is further directed that the petitioner shall approach the Authority within one month from today and if so approached pending disposal of the complaint of the petitioner, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner for the recovery of impugned amount.
5. It is clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all or any objections, which are available to it under the law against the impugned notices when it approaches the Authority under section 33 of the Act (ibid). Disposed of with the above observations. H.B.T./P-15/L Order accordingly.