1984 PLP 1911 (CLC)
MESSRS TRANSIMPEX (PAKISTAN), KARACHI — Petitioner Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, KARACHI — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1911 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Haider Ali Pirzada, JJ |
| Parties | MESSRS TRANSIMPEX (PAKISTAN), KARACHI — Petitioner Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, KARACHI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | JUDGMENT, 2. Mr. Abdul Matin in support of the above petition has invited our attention to clause (b) of section 2 of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972 which defines, an establishment as follows:‑, Workers Children ( Education) Ordinance (XI of 1972)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1911 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: JUDGMENT, 2. Mr. Abdul Matin in support of the above petition has invited our attention to clause (b) of section 2 of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972 which defines, an establishment as follows:‑, Workers Children ( Education) Ordinance (XI of 1972)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1911 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Haider Ali Pirzada, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1911 (CLC) (MESSRS TRANSIMPEX (PAKISTAN), KARACHI — Petitioner Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, KARACHI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Matin for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 3rd October, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 2(b) ‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1983), Art. 199 ‑ Word "Establishment" as defined in S. 2(b)‑Any officer, firm, premises etc., in which workers are employed for purpose of carrying on any business trade etc.‑Petitioner's business being import, export and com mission agency, labourers employed for renovation of office pre mises, held, were not in connection with petitioner's business‑Peti tioner not liable to pay Education Cess on wages paid to such labourers. Respondent (absent). AJMAL MIAN, J.‑The petitioner through this petition has impugned the order dated 24th May, 1976, passed by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay Education Cess on the wages paid by the petitioner to the labourers employed for renovation .of the petitioner's office. The peti tioner is a firm doing business of Importers, Exporters and Commission Agents having its office at Nasir House, 1. 1: Chundrigar Road, Karachi. In the impugned order it has not been denied that the above amount was paid as the wages to the labourers employed for renovation of the office premises. "(b) "Establishment" means any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workers are employed for the purpose of carrying on any business, trade, manufacture calling, service, employ ment or occupation." It may be noticed that an establishment has been defined as any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workers are employed for the purpose carrying on any business, trade, manufacture; calling, service, employment or occupation. In the instant case the labourers employed for carrying out renovation work cannot be said to have been employed for carrying on any business, trade, manufacturing, calling, service, employment or occupation as the business which is being carried on in the office of the petitioner is of that importers, exporters and commission agents. If the petitioner would have employed any person in connection with the above business of calling and if the number of the persons employed would have been as mentioned in section 3 of the Ordinance, the respondent would have been justified to ask for the payment of education cess. W ate, therefore, inclined to hold that the impugned order is without jurisdic tion. We accordingly declare the same as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondent is restrained from enforcing the same. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. M. B. A. Petition accepted.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Matin for Petitioner. Respondent (absent). Date of hearing : 3rd October, 1983. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑The petitioner through this petition has impugned the order dated 24th May, 1976, passed by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay Education Cess on the wages paid by the petitioner to the labourers employed for renovation .of the petitioner's office. The peti tioner is a firm doing business of Importers, Exporters and Commission Agents having its office at Nasir House, 1. 1: Chundrigar Road, Karachi. In the impugned order it has not been denied that the above amount was paid as the wages to the labourers employed for renovation of the office premises.
2. Mr. Abdul Matin in support of the above petition has invited our attention to clause (b) of section 2 of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972 which defines, an establishment as follows:‑
"(b) "Establishment" means any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workers are employed for the purpose of carrying on any business, trade, manufacture calling, service, employ ment or occupation." It may be noticed that an establishment has been defined as any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workers are employed for the purpose carrying on any business, trade, manufacture; calling, service, employment or occupation. In the instant case the labourers employed for carrying out renovation work cannot be said to have been employed for carrying on any business, trade, manufacturing, calling, service, employment or occupation as the business which is being carried on in the office of the petitioner is of that importers, exporters and commission agents. If the petitioner would have employed any person in connection with the above business of calling and if the number of the persons employed would have been as mentioned in section 3 of the Ordinance, the respondent would have been justified to ask for the payment of education cess. W ate, therefore, inclined to hold that the impugned order is without jurisdic tion. We accordingly declare the same as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondent is restrained from enforcing the same. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. M. B. A. Petition accepted.