1993 PLP 1021 (PLC)
GENERAL MANAGER, LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD Versus DIRECTOR (C & B), PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1021 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Shaikh and Khalid Paul Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | GENERAL MANAGER, LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD Versus DIRECTOR (C & B), PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1021 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1021 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Munir A. Shaikh and Khalid Paul Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1021 (PLC) (GENERAL MANAGER, LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD Versus DIRECTOR (C & B), PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Javed Altaf for Appellant.
- Iftikhar Ahmad Dar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th June, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(30) & 20‑‑‑Night shift allowance as part of wages‑‑‑Night Shift Allowance was paid to such workers who were employed to work in night hours‑‑‑Since that allowance was paid in addition to normal wages payable to workers during job in normal working hours in day in relation to work to be done by such workers in night hours, same certainly was part of their wages and was not exempted from payment of Social Security Contribution. (b) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(30) & 20‑‑‑Efficiency reward as part of wages‑‑‑Amount of efficiency reward which was paid annually to such workers who had put extra labour due to which efficiency of work was enhanced, had direct nexus with labour put in by workers and was paid in consideration thereof‑‑‑Such amount was part of wages on which Social Security Contribution was to be made. (c) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(30) & 20‑‑‑Long service award as part of wages‑‑‑Long service award which was paid ex gratia by employers only to those workers who remained in service for a long period and not to all workers generally, not being part of the wages could not form basis for raising demand for social security contribution.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(30) & 20‑‑‑Efficiency reward as part of wages‑‑‑Amount of efficiency reward which was paid annually to such workers who had put extra labour due to which efficiency of work was enhanced, had direct nexus with labour put in by workers and was paid in consideration thereof‑‑‑Such amount was part of wages on which Social Security Contribution was to be made. (c) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(30) & 20‑‑‑Long service award as part of wages‑‑‑Long service award which was paid ex gratia by employers only to those workers who remained in service for a long period and not to all workers generally, not being part of the wages could not form basis for raising demand for social security contribution. Javed Altaf for Appellant. Iftikhar Ahmad Dar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th June, 1993. MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J. ‑‑‑The question which arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether Efficiency Reward, Night Shift Allowance and Long Service Award given by the employers to the workers were part of their wages for the purposes of payment of Social Security Contribution.
2. The Night Shift Allowance was paid to such workers who were employed to work in the night hours. Since this allowance was paid in addition to normal wages payable to workers doing job in normal working hours in the day times in relation to the work to be done by such workers in the night hours, therefore, the same was certainly part of their wages and was not exempted from payment of Social Security Contribution.
3. The same is the case with Efficiency Reward because the same was also paid annually to such workers who had put extra labour due to which the efficiency of the Mill was enhanced. This amount has direct nexus with the labour put in by the workers and was paid in consideration thereof as such was also part of wages on which Social Security Contribution was to be made. The appeal qua the Efficiency Reward and Night Shift Allowance have no merits, which is accordingly dismissed.
4. Reverting to Long Service Award, it may be stated that it was paid ex gratia by the employer only to those workers who remained in the service for a long period and not to all the workers generally as such could not form the basis for raising demand for Social Security Contribution as the said award was not part of the wages of the workers. The appeal to this extent succeeds which is accepted and the demand raised for Social Security Contribution in relation to Long Service Award is set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./G‑161/L?????????? Order accordingly.