1993 PLP 1002 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 20, 64 & 71‑‑‑Demand for social security contribution on wages in excess of Rs.20‑‑‑Objection to‑‑‑Objection was raised on part of employer that no demand could be raised on wages in excess of Rs.20 per month‑‑‑Case remanded to Director to decide that point afresh after holding further enquiry keeping in view provisions of Ss. 20 & 71 of Ordinance, 1965 and if it was established that under the provisions of S. 71 any Notification was issued authorising Institution to charge social security contribution in respect of wages in excess of Rs.20 p.m., same should be allowed otherwise case be decided in accordance with provisions of S. 20 of Ordinance. Javed Altaf for Appellant. Iftikhar Ahmad Dar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th June, 1993. MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J: ‑‑In this appeal under section 64 of the Social Security Ordinance, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions: ‑‑ (a) That the house rent was not part of wages, therefore, no demand could be raised by the respondent for social security contribution on any amount paid as such allowance to the employees; (b) that the Director, Social Security Institution was not vested with power to decide the complaint filed by the appellant under section 57 of the Ordinance against the demand raised by the Institution; (c) that no demand could be raised on wages in excess of Rs.20 per month as provided in section 20 of the Ordinance for the period in dispute as the said section was amended in 1985 providing that the demand could not be raised on wages in excess of Rs.40 per month which was not applicable to the case of the appellant.

2. As regards first contention the same does not have any force as the Supreme Court has held in judgment dated 10‑3‑1993 delivered in Civil Appeal No. 216/85 and others that the House Rent and Attendance Allowance etc. are part of wages on which demand for social security contribution could be raised, therefore, the appeal qua the said question has no merits and dismissed.

3. As regards the jurisdiction of the Director of the Institution to decide the complaint, it may be stated that under section 57 primarily it is the Institution constituted under the Ordinance, which has been empowered to decide the complaint against any demand raised for social security contribution. However, section 77 of the Ordinance permits delegation of this power by the Governing Body of the Institution to the Commissioner or any other officer under the Institution. When questioned learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute `that the Director was an officer performing functions under the Institution. Section 80 of the Ordinance, empowers the Governing Body of the Institution to frame regulations in respect of any of the matter enumerated therein including any matter provided in the Ordinance in order to give effect to them. The regulations framed by the Governing Body provides that the Commissioner could authorise the Director to decide the said complaint. The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Commissioner being delegatee of the power of the Institution could not further delegate the said power to any other person according to general law.

4. We are afraid the argument in our opinion is plainly unsound and not tenable on close scrutiny of the abovementioned provisions of the Ordinance and the regulation. A delegatee of a power no doubt is debarred from further delegating it under the general principles provided he was not authorised expressly to do so by his delegator. In this case the Commissioner who was conferred the power to decide the complaint had been expressly further empowered to authorise the Director to decide the complaint, therefore, the power was vested in the Director to decide the complaint. This view finds support from judgments reported as Hussain Sugar Mills Limitd, Saramiala and another v. Commissioner, Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution 1982 PLC 366 and judgment passed in FAO No. 120/80. The objection being without any force is hereby repelled.

5. The appeal is partly accepted qua the question regarding demand raised in relation to wages in excess of Rs.20 per month and the case is remanded to the Director to decide the said point afresh after holding further inquiry keeping in view the provisions of sections 20 and 71 of the Ordinance and if it was established that under the provisions of section 71 any notification was issued authorising the Institution to charge social security contribution in `respect of wages in excess of Rs.20 per month the same shall be allowed otherwise the case shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of section 20 of the Ordinance. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑464/L Order accordingly.