Wages

Petitioners' (establishments as defined in S. 2(e) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976) assailed the demand raised by Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution while keeping in consideration a notification issued under the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961, wherein monthly wage was fixed as Rs.25000 per month

Claim of petitioners' was that the word "wages" means the rates of wages as declared under the Minimum Wages for Unskilled Workers Ordinance, 1960 and that the rate of wages as per the Ordinance, 1960, was Rs.13000 per month

Validity

Section 2(p) of Employees' at Age Benefit Act, 1976, was amended in the present form through S. 5 of the Finance Act, 2005

Before that the wages defined in S. 2(p) was wages declared under the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961

Supreme Court in the case reported as Workers' Welfare Funds, Ministry of Human Resources Department, Islamabad and others v. East Pakistan Chrome Tannery (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore and others [PLD 2017 Supreme Court 28] while discussing implication of amendments brought about in various Acts including the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 through Money Bill i.e. the Finance Act by passing the regular legislative procedure under Art. 70 of the Constitution, had declared all such amendments to be unlawful and ultra vires the Constitution

As a result, legally and in effect, the definition of wages provided before the Finance Act, 2005, had to be read and applied for the purpose of determining mode and manner of determining the minimum wages for the workers

No illegality was found in the action of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.