Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: REHMANIA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD VS Respondent: PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE
1993 P L C 1017
1993 P L C 1017
[Lahore High Court]
Before Munir A. Shaikh and Khalid Paul Khawaja, JJ
M/s. REHMANIA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD
Versus
PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE and others
FA.O. No. 4 of 1980, heard on 16th June, 1993.
West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 57 & 64‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Maintainability of‑‑‑Only law point which required determination in appeal was whether appellant/emloyer was liable to pay contribution for period in which management and control of mill allegedly remained with C.BA. workers union which took over its possession forceibly‑‑ Both Courts below had held that such a dispute could not be raised under S.57 and employer was liable to pay contribution‑‑‑Even if workers Union had taken over forcibly possession of the Mill, appellant continued to be employer and it was employer who under the law was liable to pay contribution.
Javed Altaf for Appellant.
Iftikhar Ahmad Dar for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th June, 1993.
JUDGMENT
MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑The only law point which requires determination in this appeal filed under section 64(2) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is whether the appellant was liable to pay contribution from 1‑6‑1976 to 2‑7‑1977 for which period allegedly the management and control of the Will remained with the C.BA. Union which allegedly took over its possession forcibly. Both the Courts below have held that such a dispute could not be raised under section 57 of the Social Security Ordinance, and the appellant was liable to pay the contribution.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy us that the view taken by the two Courts below is either erroneous or otherwise not sustainable wider the law. Even if the workers union had taken over forcible the possession of the Mill the appellant continued to be the employer and it was the employer who under the law was liable to pay the contribution.
3. The appeal has no force which is accordingly dismissed with no order as tot costs.
H.B.T./R‑101/L Appeal dismissed.