1988 PLP 954 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION and others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 954 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION and others |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 954 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 954 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 954 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghous Muhammad Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Younas Khokhar for Respondent.
- The abovesaid detenu has been recovered and produced before this Court today. The bailiff has also submitted the detailed report which discloses that the detenu was taken into custody on 23‑12‑1987 in spite of his protest that he was neither a partner nor owner of any brick kiln and nothing was due from him to the respondents. I have recorded the statement of the detenu. He stated that he is simply a clerk employed by the owners of the brick kiln. However, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the detenu is acting as an agent on behalf of owners of the brick kiln. He states that under law any Manager, representative or agent can be taken into custody if the amount required is not paid to the respondents. I do not find any lawful justification with respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to apprehend the detenu without having registered any case against him. Even otherwise the detenu is simply a clerk employed by the owner of the brick kiln. Under law he cannot be held responsible for the payment of the dues which dues are to be pail by the owner of the brick kiln to the respondents. This being A the position, the detenu was illegally and improperly detained by the respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 23 & 66‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.491‑‑Habeas corpus petition‑‑Petitioner, clerk of brick kiln, taken into custody for non‑payment of contribution to Social Security Institution‑‑No lawful justification found to apprehend detenu without having registered any case against him‑ Petitioner, even otherwise, being simply a clerk employed by owner of brick kiln could not be held responsible for payment of dues which were to be paid by owner of brick kiln to Institution‑‑Petitioner, held, was illegally and improperly detained and hence set at liberty‑‑Institution might proceed in matter for recovery of amount against owner or anybody else responsible for payment of the dues. Atta Muhammad, Bailiff with detenu, present in person.
Judgment & Decree
Ghous Muhammad Chaudhry for Petitioner. Muhammad Younas Khokhar for Respondent. Atta Muhammad, Bailiff with detenu, present in person. The petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, has moved this Habeas Corpus petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. for the recovery and production of the detenu, Muhammad Yasin son of Muhammad Ibrahim, before this Court so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. The abovesaid detenu has been recovered and produced before this Court today. The bailiff has also submitted the detailed report which discloses that the detenu was taken into custody on 23‑12‑1987 in spite of his protest that he was neither a partner nor owner of any brick kiln and nothing was due from him to the respondents. I have recorded the statement of the detenu. He stated that he is simply a clerk employed by the owners of the brick kiln. However, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the detenu is acting as an agent on behalf of owners of the brick kiln. He states that under law any Manager, representative or agent can be taken into custody if the amount required is not paid to the respondents. I do not find any lawful justification with respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to apprehend the detenu without having registered any case against him. Even otherwise the detenu is simply a clerk employed by the owner of the brick kiln. Under law he cannot be held responsible for the payment of the dues which dues are to be pail by the owner of the brick kiln to the respondents. This being A the position, the detenu was illegally and improperly detained by the respondents. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The detenu is set at liberty. The respondents may proceed in the matter for the recovery of the amount against the owners or anybody else who is responsible for payment of the dues. With this observation this petition is disposed of. S.Q./M‑771/L. Petition allowed.