1994 PLP 686 (PLC)

Kh. Muhammad Farooq for Petitioner. MA. Hayee Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1994. The main grievance of the petitioner is that it has been illegally registered under the Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act No. XIV of 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act XIV of 1976). The petition was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have appeared and contested the petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are of the view that no complaint under section 33 is competent in the case where registration is made on the basis of notification issued by the Federal Government in respect of an industry or establishment. It is added that the view is clearly misconceived and on account of misinterpretation of provisions of section 33 of Act, 1976 by the respondents.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner did not avail the remedy at all and that the complaint lies to the Board of Trustees and not to be adjudicating authority. Be that as it may, I have already held in W.P. No. 1277 of 1989 that the complaint is competent in view of the clear provisions of section 33(ee) of Act, 1976 promulgated through Ordinance XVII of 1983. This Court has already held in the case reported as M/s. Rupali Polyester Ltd. v. Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Institution and another 1991 PLC 318 that the writ petition is rendered incompetent if a party has not availed the statutory remedies under Chapter VII of the Act XIV of 1976. The relevant portion reads as under:‑‑ "This portion is strictly in accordance with the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Messrs Agri Auto Industries Ltd. (supra). This renders petition incompetent. The petitioner should have pursued his remedies with the Institution as provided by statute. This lends support to the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is incompetent and to the same effect are the unreported judgments of this Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. The same view was expressed by the Karachi High Court in Messrs Cowasjee and Sons v. Director, Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (supra). The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that the provisions of sections 57 to 59 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, are para materia to the provisions of sections 33 to 35 of the Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act, 1976. I, therefore, have no hesitation` in upholding the preliminary objection."

4. The result is that this petition is dismissed as incompetent. However, the petitioner if advised may pursue its remedy under Chapter VII of the Act XIV of 1976. No order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1691/L Petition dismissed.