FARID COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. versus VICE-COMMISSIONER, PESSI
Sections 2 (9) and 20 (8) the contractor employed by the premises owner / owner for certain construction work. Contractor paying social security contributions for the construction workforce Contractor (Appellant) was engaged by the premises owner (defendant) for construction work in his factory premises Social Security Institute. Tuition issued notice to the contractor for payment of paid short salary \ The Commissioner Social Security Institution found that he was the owner of the premises responsible for paying the short-term contribution. Maintained by Social Security Court High Court rejects social security court decision And said that we had to pay the workers building the social security contractor. The contractor agreed that it was the employer who was supposed to participate. That the High Court misinterpreted the expression / guarantee mis in Section 20 (8) of the Provincial Employees \ Social Security Ordinance, 1965, as it was stated that the expression was merely to ensure that the employer / owner That social protection was paid in relation to the workers. The contractor's responsibility was transferred to the contractor but without his imagination, though in section 20 (1) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, the employer was responsible for contributing to social protection in each case. The employee provided, whether employed directly or through another person, but in the case of construction work, Section 20 (8) of the Ordinance made an exception by providing construction construction work case
