1990 PLP 244 (PLC)
SAINT PETER HIGH SCHOOL, GUJRANWALA Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (FIELD OPERATION) EMPLOYEES OLD‑AGE
| Citation | 1990 PLP 244 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazl‑i‑Mahmood J |
| Parties | SAINT PETER HIGH SCHOOL, GUJRANWALA Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (FIELD OPERATION) EMPLOYEES OLD‑AGE |
| Primary Law | Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 244 (PLC)?
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 1990 PLP 244 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Fazl‑i‑Mahmood J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 244 (PLC) (SAINT PETER HIGH SCHOOL, GUJRANWALA Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (FIELD OPERATION) EMPLOYEES OLD‑AGE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Petitioner.
- Abdul Hayee Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 2(e)‑‑‑Establishment‑‑‑School, even it was not being run for profit or gain, held, would fall within purview of term `establishment' as defined in the Act and as such would require compulsory registration under the Act.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Petitioner. Abdul Hayee Khan for Respondent. This writ petition has been filed by a school of District Gujranwala claiming exemption, from the rigours of Employees Old Age Benefit Act, 1976.
2. I have held a pre‑admission hearing at the motion stage and the learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the Institution.
3. There are two‑fold submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case set up before this Court; firstly, that the petitioner's school did not fall within the definition of institutions contemplated by the provisions of the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 and as such it did not require registration under the said Act; and secondly, under section 2(e), no notification having been issued to bring a school within the purview of the term `establishment' as defined in section 2(c) of the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act, (Act XIV of 1976), there was no obligation cast on the petitioner to get a compulsory registration or to subject itself to other rigours of said law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Institution has cited the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported as Don Bosco High School v. The Assistant Director, E.O.B.I. and others P L D 1989 S C 128, February and March Parts.
5. A perusal of the cited precedent shows that the matter in controversy in the present case stands resolved authoritatively by the cited decision of the Supreme Court. It has been held that the definition of the establishment as given in the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 would include petitioner school. The petitioner school fell within the mischief of the said Act. A further plea that the petitioner school before the Supreme Court was not being run for profit or gain to escape from the rigours of the law was repelled after holding that such institutions were also included within the purview of the Act as stated in the definition itself.
6. In view of the above legal position, I do not think there is any scope for any relief to the petitioner to find an escape from the provisions of the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act, 1970. The result is that this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Since both the sides have been heard, it is disposed of as a notice case. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./S‑579/L Petition dismissed.