2000 PLP 336 (PLC)
Messrs GLOBE TRADERS Versus EOBI and others
| Citation | 2000 PLP 336 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Mrs. Khalida Rachid, JJ, |
| Parties | Messrs GLOBE TRADERS Versus EOBI and others |
| Primary Law | (b) Words and phrases, (a) Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 336 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Words and phrases, (a) Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 336 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Mrs. Khalida Rachid, JJ,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 336 (PLC) (Messrs GLOBE TRADERS Versus EOBI and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Abdur Rashid and Qazi Abdul Basit for Petitioner.
- Salim Dil Khan for Respondents.
- Dates of hearing: 15th and 16th June, 1999.
- 3. Praying to declare the impugned order, dated 27‑10‑1996 and subsequent orders passed by the respondents as illegal, null and void. Qazi Abdur Rashid, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner argued that the Act, cannot be applied to the petitioners concern as it is being run by less than ten employees i.e. below the required strength. Therefore, the establishment has wrongly been registered by respondent No. 1. It was further argued that the Managing Director, Director and Assistant Director of the petitioner's establishment do not fall under the definition of employee, hence they cannot be calculated towards the total strength of the employees under section 2(bb) of the Act.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 1(4), 2(c), 2(bb), 11(3) & 33
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Registration of company for payment of contribution
Company was registered under S.11(3), Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 and was directed to make contribution
Company resisted the registration by filing complaint under S-33, Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 alleging that number of employees in the Company during the whole period had never exceeded eight employees and application for the Act required the strength of ten employees
Complaint of Company was dismissed on the ground that three Directors of Company would also be included as employees of the company
Pay roll of Company had shown only eight employees therein and three Directors were members of one family
Even otherwise said Directors did not fall within the definition of "employee" as given in S.2(bb) of Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976
Total number of employees in the Company being less than required number of ten employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 was not applicable to the Company
Order of Institution whereby Company was registered and was asked to make contribution was set aside by High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
"Employee"
Employee is a person who is engaged by another on payment of wages
It connotes relationship between master and servant.
Judgment & Decree
(bb) employee' means any person employed, whether directly or through any other person, for wages or otherwise, to do any skilled or unskilled work. Supervisory, clerical, manual or other work in or in connection with the affairs of an industry or' establishment, under a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether written or oral, express or implied, and includes such person when laid off: Provided that a director of a limited company or of a corporation set up under any law shall not be treated as an employee under this act, irrespective of his wages or emoluments. (c) 'employer, in relation to an industry or establishment, means any person who employs, either directly or through any other person, any employee, and includes‑‑ (i) in the case of an individual, an heir, successor, administrator or assign; . (ii) a person who has ultimate control over the affairs of an industry. or establishment or where the affairs of an industry or establishment are entrusted to any other person (whether called a managing agent,, managing director, manager, superintendent, secretary or by any other name), such other person.' Proviso to section 2(bb) above categorically exempts/excludes a director of a limited company from the definition of an employee. Similarly section 2(c) 'describes employer a person who may be managing director if has a control over the affairs of the industry or where the affairs of the industry are entrusted to him. "
7. We may also refer to the dictionary meaning of word "employee". According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary it means 'a person employed for wages'. The Collins Compact Thesaurus Dictionary provides alternate words as 'job holder', staff member and wage earner. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term 'employee' as 'one who works for another.' According to Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, it means 'a person employed'. More elaborate definition is provided in 'Law Terms and Phrases' as employee means any person who was employed for hire or reward to any work skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages had been taken'.
8. In coming to the conclusion, after considering the above definitions employee is a person who is engaged by another on. payment of wages. It connotes relationship between Master and Servant. The aforesaid three directors who are admittedly the owners of the petitioner concern and had employed the eight employees for wages cannot be termed as employee. Furthermore, section 47 of the Act enumerates the person to whom this Act shall not apply which says:‑‑ S.47. Act not to apply to certain persons. ‑‑‑Nothing in this Act shall apply to‑‑ (a) persons in the service of the State, including members of the armed forces, police force and railway servants; (b) persons in the service of a local council, a municipal committee, a cantonment board or any other local authority; (c) persons who are employed in services or installations connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan including an ordnance factory maintained by the Federal Government or Railway Administration; (d) persons in the service of Water and Power Development Authority; (e) persons in the service of a bank or a banking company; (f) persons in the service of statutory bodies other than those employed in or in connection with the affairs, of a factory (as defined in) section 2(j) of the Factories Act, 1934 (XXIV of 1934), or (as defined in the) Mines Act, 1923 (IV of 1923): Provided that workships maintained exclusively for the purposes of repair or maintenance of equipment or vehicles used in such statutory bodies shall not be treated as factories for the purposes of this clause. (g) members of the employer's family that is to say the husband or wife and dependent children of the employer) living in his house, in respect of their work for him.
9. Section 47(g) of the Act specifically lays down that this Act shall not be applicable to members of the employer's family, that is to say, the husband or wife and dependent children of the employer living in his house, in respect of their work for him.
10. Copy of pay roll of the petitioner‑company at page 17 of the petition shows that Managing Director, Director Finance and Director namely:‑‑ Assadullah Khan Lodhi, Ms. Robina Lodhi and Ms. Safia Khanum Lodhi are members of one family, hence this Act ostensibly shall not apply to the' petitioner‑concern.
11. We may also refer to the preamble of this Act. It is specifically mentioned that this law is enacted for the benefit of the persons employed in industrial, commercial and other organizations.
12. For the foregoing reasons, we accept the petition by setting aside the impugned orders of the respondent. The parties shall bear their own costs. H.B.T./409/P Petition accepted.