Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NABEEL FIBRE LIMITED, MURIDKE VS Respondent: VICE-COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE
1993 P L C 1018
1993 P L C 1018
[Lahore High Court]
Before Munir A. Shaikh and Khalid Paul Khawaja, JJ
M/s. NABEEL FIBRE LIMITED, MURIDKE
Versus
VICE‑COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE
FA.O. No. 147 of 1990, heard on 15th June, 1993.
West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 20(4), 64 & 71‑‑‑Conveyance allowance‑‑‑Question whether conveyance allowance was allowed to employees as a matter of right in pursuance of express or implied contract of service or ex gratia, required inquiry which could involve recording of evidence without which it could not be determined whether same could be held to be part of wages for raising demand for social security contribuition‑‑‑Same was position in relation to demand on wages in excess of Rs.40 per day under S.20 (4)‑‑‑Case was remanded to be decided afresh after holding inquiry in complaint filed by employer.
Javed Altaf for Appellant.
Iftikhar Ahmad Dar for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 16th June, 1993.
JUDGMENT
MUNIR‑ A. SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑In this appeal filed under section 64 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, 'the following questions have arisen for determination:‑‑
(a) Whether conveyance allowance is part of wages of the employees regarding which the respondent could raise demand for social security contribution?
(b) Whether the demand on the wages in excess of Rs.40 per day was justified?
2. The question whether the conveyance allowance was allowed to the workers as a matter of right in pursuance of express or implied contract of service or ex gratin requires inquiry which may involve recording of evidence without which it could not be determined whether the same could be held to be part of wages for raising demand for social security contribution. The same is the position in relation to demand on the wages in excess of Rs.40 per day under section 20(4) of the Ordinance. This provision of the Ordinance has been expressly made subject to provision of section 71 which provides that notwithstanding anything provided in section 20 a demand could be raised on wages in excess of Rs.40 per day if the requirements as prescribed under section 71 had been fulfilled which cannot be determined without holding an inquiry.
3. This appeal is accepted. The case is remanded to the Director to decide afresh after holding inquiry in the complaint filed by the, employer. There will be no order as to costs.
H.B.T./N‑176/L Case remanded.