Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUMTAZ AHMED SILK MILLS LTD. VS Respondent: DIRECTOR, SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION
1988 S C M R 668
1988 S C M R 668
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Javid Iqbal, JJ
MUMTAZ AHMED SILK MILLS Ltd.‑‑Petitioners
versus
DIRECTOR SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION and another‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 411‑K of 1987, decided on 26th January, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 1st October, 1987 in Constitutional Petition No. D‑268 of 1987).
West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑
‑‑‑S.57‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.81‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, 8.118‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Employer's contribution under Social Security Ordinance‑‑Arrears‑‑Recovery of‑‑Coercive land revenue arrears recovery process‑‑Application of‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that if a disputed claim had been raised the functionaries under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance were bound in the first instance to wait out the 90 days period of complaint /appeal under S.57 of the Ordinance before issuing coercive land revenue arrears recovery process because either the said claim should be admitted by other side or converted into dues by final order of High Court made under S.67 of the Ordinance.
S.A. Samad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Muzaffar Hasan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners
S.A. Sarwana, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents
Date of hearing: 26th January, 1988.
ORDER
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 1st October, 1987. The petitioners are a private limited company owning an art‑silk factory. They were assessed for the purpose of payment of contribution under the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 by respondent No.1 in 1980 and continued to make contribution upto January 1982 when they addressed a letter to respondent No.1 informing him that their factory was closed due to numerous reasons. Upon the receipt of this communication respondent No.1 did not make any demand for the contribution from them. However, through his letter, dated 25th May, 1986 addressed to the petitioners, respondent No.1 informed them that during a surprise visit to their establishment it was discovered that the factory was functioning without any intimation to respondent No.1. The petitioners were directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 29th May, 1986 alongwith the documentary evidence regarding reopening of the factory and the strength of the employees engaged. The petitioners appeared before him. Eventually respondent No.1 after examining the record as well as income‑tax assessment order for the year 1985‑86 assessed the contribution for ‑the period commencing from 1st January, 1982 to 31st December, 1986 and conveyed the same to the petitioners vide letter, dated 8th February, 1987 whereupon they were called upon to pay a sum of Rs.1,32,143.03. This demand was contested by the petitioners. Thereafter, the matter was referred by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 for the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue. A letter dated 25th February, 1987 followed by a notice dated 2nd March, 1987 were accordingly issued to the petitioners under section 81 of the Land Revenue Act 1967 read with rule 118 of the Land Revenue Rules. These were challenged before the High Court by way of Constitutional Petition. But their plea to the effect that the coercive land revenue arrears recovery procedure could not be set in motion was rejected. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
It is inter alia argued by the learned counsel that if a disputed claim had been raised as in the instant case, the respondents as functionaries under the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance were bound in the first instance to wait out the 90 days period of complaint /appeal under section 57 of the Ordinance before issuing the coercive land revenue arrears recovery process because either the said claim should be admitted by the other side namely the petitioners or converted into dues by a final order of the High Court made under section 67 of the said Ordinance. In order to consider the points raised by the learned counsel we grant leave in this case. Security to be deposited Rs.5,000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with permission to file additional documents if necessary.
M.I./M‑345/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.