Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. K‑124 of 1979, decided on 30th June, 1979.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sid High Court dated 31‑3‑79 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 49/76).
‑‑ S. 2(I1)‑‑"Establishment"‑Definition‑Provisions of Ordinance extended to an establishment by Notification‑Question whether such Notification was confined to establishment located at address given in Notification and did not extend to employees working at Head Office of Company‑Held, covered by judgment of Supreme Court in case of Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. P L D 1977 S C 197 and that it does not need review.
Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Sind Employees' Social Security Institution P L D 1977 S C 197 ref.
S. Ahmad Sarwana, Advocate Supreme Court with Vakil Ahmad Kidwal, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner,
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 30th June, 1979.
‑This petition is directed against the judgment of the Sind High 0Court dated the 31st of March, 1979, whereby an appeal filed by the respondent, Greaves Cotton & Co. (Pak.) Ltd., against an order made by the Social Security Court was partly accepted, and the case was remanded to the Social Security Institution to hold an inquiry into the question whether the employees working at the Head Office of the respon dent could be described as employees working in connection with the work of the notified establishment located in the Sind Industrial Trading Estate, Karachi, for the purposes of the application of the provisions of the Social Security Ordinance.
The provisions of the West Pakistan Social Security Ordinance, 1965,1 were extended to the employees of respondent by a notification issued by the Government of Sind on the 15th of October, 1975, describing the establishment as "Messrs Greaves Cotton & Co. (Pak) Ltd.‑S‑14, Near Brooke Bond SITE" The respondent contended that the notification was confined to the establishment located at the address given in the notification and did not extend to the employees working at the Head Office of the Company. This contention was, however, not accepted by the Social Security Court. The learned Judge in the High Court has expressed the view that the matter was fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Sind Employees' Social Security Institution P L D 1977 S C 197. He has, accordingly, remanded the case to the Social Security Institution for holding the necessary inquiry in the terms indicated in the aforesaid judgment. He has not accepted the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the facts of the precedent case were distinguishable.
Leave to appeal is sought by Mr. Sarwana on the grounds that the learned Judge in the High Court was in error in thinking that the case before him was fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. and that even if it was so covered, there was need to review the decision in that case as the Court had construed the term establishment' as defined in clause (11) of section 2 of the Ordinance in a rather narrow sense, whereas it is intended to include the entire organisation and not merely the factory or godown or shop situated at the notified address, with the result that once a notifica tion is issued it would extend to all the business undertakings carried on by the notified establishments, irrespective of its location.
We regret we are not persuaded that the judgment of the full Court of five Judges in the case of Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. needs review on the grounds submitted by Mr. Sarwana. This point was fully argued by Mr. Sarwana on that occasion, and the terms establishment' and employee' as defined in the Ordinance were interpreted by the Court in the light of the detailed submissions made by both sides in this behalf. The submissions made today before us are exactly on the same lines, and cannot prevail in view of the judgment referred to above.
Similarly there is no merit in the submission that the dictum of this Court in the precedent case was not applicable to the instant case, or that the learned Judge in the High Court has not applied the same correctly. We consider that the learned Judge has acted rightly in the light of the previous decision of this Court.
The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer