2003 PLP 163 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss.20(1) & 23‑‑‑Provincial Employees' Social Security (Contribution) Rules, 1968, R.6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Contribution, increase in‑‑‑Petitioner employer contended that demand for increase of 50% amount under S.23 of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, read with R.6 of Provincial Employees' Social Security (Contribution) Rules, 1968, was not warranted by law as it could not be concluded that the petitioners failed to pay on the due date the contribution payable under S.20(1) of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether the facts of the present case attracted the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Supreme Court in case titled M. Imamuddin v. Mst. Surriya Khanum through Legal Heirs, reported as PLD 1991 SC

317. Shaheen Airport Services v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution 1994 SCMR 881 and M. Imamuddin v. Mst. Surriya Khanum through Legal Heirs PLD 1991 SC 317 ref. Siddique Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th November, 1997. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above two petitions which are directed against a common judgment dated 29‑4‑1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh in Misc. Appeals Nos.46 and 47 of 1995, filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 20‑6‑1991 and 26‑11‑1992 passed upon their appeal by the Commissioner, Sindh Employees Social Security Institutions, maintaining the demand of the respondents for the additional payment of 50% on the contribution which the petitioner failed to make in respect of porters working at the Karachi Airport, dismissing the same. The petitioners have, therefore, tiled the present petitions for leave to appeal.

2. In support of the above petitions Mr. Siddique Mirza, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, has contended that till the decision of this Court on 21‑12‑1993 in the case of Shaheen Airport Services v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (1994 SCMR 881), it was not clear as to whether the petitioners were liable to make any contribution under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, and, therefore, the demand for the increase of 50% amount under section 23 of the above Ordinance read with Rule 6 of the Provincial Employees Social Security (Contribution) Rules, 1968 is not warranted by law as it cannot be concluded that the petitioners failed to pay on the due date the contribution payable under subsection (1) of section 20 of the aforesaid Ordinance. Reliance has been place by him on the judgment of this Court in the case of M. Imamuddin v. Mst. Surriya Khanum through Legal Heirs (PLD 1991 SC 317).

3. We are inclined to grant leave to consider, as whether the facts of the present case attract the ratio decidendi of the judgment of this Court in the case of M. Imamuddin v. Mst. Surriya Khanum (supra). Leave is accordingly, granted. As regards the stay application, we are not inclined to grant any stay order. The petitioners shall pay the disputed amount to the respondents subject to their right to recover the same back in case they succeed in the appeals arising out of the present petitions. Q.M.H./S‑189/S Leave granted.