2006 PLP 263 (PLC)

ZIA PERWAZ, J.

This petition is directed against the demand of respondent No.2 vide their letter dated 10-5-2005, calling upon the petitioners for demand' of a sum of Rs.1,14,

590. The petitioner is a registered Society, running an educational institution under the name and style of "Light House Public School" at Malir Cantt. Karachi. The contention of Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the establishment as defined under section 2(II) of the Social Security Ordinance 1965, does not cover the school being run by the petitioner. In this regard he stated that there are two conflicting views one adopted by the Lahore High Court in the case of Don Bosco High School Empress Road, Lahore v. Director, Social Security (2005 PLC 110) and other by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of St. Bonaventure's Boys High Schools Tilak Incline and Qasimabad Hyderabad v. Province of Sindh (2004 PLC 381). The learned counsel further proceeded to argue that in addition to the question of the institution of the petitioner being covered by the Social Security Ordinance, there are other questions requiring consideration as to the number of employees, the determination of quantum of benefits, verification of record and other relief measures necessary for making payment of contribution which requires calling for determination of this Court in the present petition. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents. Mr. Khalid Habibullah, learned counsel for Respondents Nos.2 and 3 has advanced his arguments and opposed the petition, the same view is also adopted by Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, the learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1. The question as to whether the establishment as defined under section 2 (ii) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 was examined by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of St. Bonaventure's Boys High Schools Tilak Incline and Qasimabad Hyderabad v. Province of Sindh (2004 PLC 381) (supra). The definition of establishment as provided under the Ordinance having been considered by a Division Bench of this Court. Contention of the learned counsel that the definition of establishment existing in other statutes does not carry any weight. It is settled law that when a definition is provided for by a statute-the same has to be considered. This exercise has been carried on in elaborate manner earlier by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid matter with which we are in respectful agreement. The view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court is even otherwise binding on this DB in view of the law laid down in the case of Multi Line Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others (1995 SC 423). The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the question of determination of quantum of amount is concerned, we are afraid that these points call for determination of facts for which remedy is provided by the Ordinance and the authority constituted therein is fully competent to carry on such an exercise which is required to be conducted by way of the present petition as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Kaniz Fatima v. Muhammad Salim (2001 SCMR 1493), wherein it has been observed as under:-- "Where a particular statute provides self-contained machinery for determination of questions arising under the statute and law provides a remedy by appeal or revision to another Tribunal fully competent to give any relief, any indulgence to the contrary by High Court is bound to produce a sense of distrust in statutory Tribunals constitutional petition, without exhausting remedy provided by the statute, did not lie in circumstances." In view of the foregoing discussion the petition is dismissed in limine. However as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner the above order shall not prejudice the petitioner from availing such other remedy as may be available according to law. H.B.T./M-18/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.