1993 PLP 801 (PLC)
SINDH EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION and another Versus M/s. ALLWIN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD.
| Citation | 1993 PLP 801 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | SINDH EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION and another Versus M/s. ALLWIN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 801 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 801 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 801 (PLC) (SINDH EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION and another Versus M/s. ALLWIN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- SA. Sarwana, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghoury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Mohsin Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs: Majida Rizvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st March, 1993.
- The main grievance of the learned counsel is that this plea was, neither raised nor argued by the petitioners' Advocate and therefore it should be struck down as the judgment was passed without hearing any arguments of the parties. While making this observation the learned Judges dismissed the petition on the ground that alternate remedy available under the statute had not been exhausted by the respondent. Mr. Sarwana, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to sections 2(8) and 20(4) of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 and also the meaning of the, word `appointed' to contend that the respondent is liable to pay contribution on the wages of all the employees who are working in or in connection with the business or industry of the respondent establishment except those who are appointed on wages exceeding Rs.1,500 per mensem. The learned counsel referred to various cases and the dictionary meaning of the word `appointed' to contend that the amount of wages relates to the date of initial appointment and not subsequent dates. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to grant leave on this aspect of the case as this question should be dealt with by the High Court and it is only after their considered opinion has been expressed that the matter can be agitated in the Supreme Court. In this way we will have the benefit of the opinion of the High Court as well. Furthermore, Mr. Sarwana stated at the bar, that there are several petitions on this question pending in the High Court or before the Authority. We are, however, inclined to grant leave on the question whether, while deciding the petition on a preliminary point if the merits of the case have not been argued, was it proper to adjudicate that issue and pass the judgment on merits. Leave is granted.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 10‑1‑1993 passed in C.P. 313/1992). (a) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(8) & 20(4)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Establishment's liability to pay contribution on the wages of all employees who were working in or in connection with the business or industry of the establishment except those who were appointed on wages exceeding Rs.1,500 per mensem‑‑‑Word "appointed"‑‑‑Connotation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused on the ground that question raised should be first dealt with by the High Court and only after its considered opinion had been expressed, such matter could be agitated in the Supreme Court so as enable it to take benefit of the opinion of the High Court. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Dismissal of Constitutional petition on the ground that alternate remedy available under the Statute had no: been exhausted‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider that when merits of the case had not been argued, was it proper for the High Court to adjudicate that issue and pass judgment on merits while deciding Constitutional petition on a preliminary point.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh .whereby Constitution petition filed by the respondent against the demand by the petitioners for contribution in respect of employees drawing more than Rs.20 per day as wages was dismissed. The result of the petition has gone in favour of the petitioners, but they are aggrieved by certain observations made by the Court. The learned counsel has particularly referred to the following observations:‑‑ "The observations made by the Supreme Court, earlier reproduced in this judgment, therefore, make it abundantly clear that section 20(4)(a) of the said Ordinance is to be interpreted in harmony with section 2(8) of the Ordinance and section 20(4)(a) was never meant either to enlarge or control the definition of `employee' given in section 2(8). Consequently, if the employer is compelled by the respondent No. 2 to make contributions in respect of persons whose wages exceed Rupees one thousand and five hundred per mensem, the employer can raise a valid objection in this regard because such action no doubt would be in violation of the relevant provisions of Ordinance X of 1965:" The main grievance of the learned counsel is that this plea was, neither raised nor argued by the petitioners' Advocate and therefore it should be struck down as the judgment was passed without hearing any arguments of the parties. While making this observation the learned Judges dismissed the petition on the ground that alternate remedy available under the statute had not been exhausted by the respondent. Mr. Sarwana, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to sections 2(8) and 20(4) of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 and also the meaning of the, word `appointed' to contend that the respondent is liable to pay contribution on the wages of all the employees who are working in or in connection with the business or industry of the respondent establishment except those who are appointed on wages exceeding Rs.1,500 per mensem. The learned counsel referred to various cases and the dictionary meaning of the word `appointed' to contend that the amount of wages relates to the date of initial appointment and not subsequent dates. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to grant leave on this aspect of the case as this question should be dealt with by the High Court and it is only after their considered opinion has been expressed that the matter can be agitated in the Supreme Court. In this way we will have the benefit of the opinion of the High Court as well. Furthermore, Mr. Sarwana stated at the bar, that there are several petitions on this question pending in the High Court or before the Authority. We are, however, inclined to grant leave on the question whether, while deciding the petition on a preliminary point if the merits of the case have not been argued, was it proper to adjudicate that issue and pass the judgment on merits. Leave is granted. A.A./S‑759/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Order accordingly