Find a Lawyer

SINDH EMPLOYEES\' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, KARACHI versus MESSRS PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL, KARACHI

The offer, section 2 (30), expressing `wages 'and` compensation' was a matter of mutual understanding of the employees and the employer in relation to the payment of a dispute guarantee payment between the employer and the authorities that the High Court felt as such. Was not part of the payment. Employees' wages are valid. Simple wages are any kind of payment that can be paid by a person and words re-paid by the definition of service delivery that may include payment for a given allowance or service. Is. And such other payments include the definition of the term \ wages of the Provincial Employees Security Section 2 (30) of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, which was comprehensive and reasonable, and occasionally payments that were not considered part of the wages were all Payments made under any of the rules. Or the instrument, contract or settlement should be treated as a wage, either legally or as a contractual obligation, under any law not specifically excluded from the definition of wages. The concept of a social protection contribution was to promote the welfare of the working class, which included the payment of wages and the expenses of the employees responsible for the welfare of the employees and, therefore, the provision of provincial employees. The Social Security Ordinance, 1965, cannot be construed in such a way that it can destroy the purpose and defeat its purpose if the employer pays an employee for the service offered by him in lieu of his contract or legal obligation. , The amount should be treated as part of the wages under section 2 (30) of the Provincial Employees \ Social Security Ordinance, 1965 S will, even between employer and employee mutually mfa famous supreme court advocate from Shemier lawyer