Find a Lawyer

(a)

West Pakistan

--- S. 20 (1) & (7)-West Pakistan Social Security (Contributions) Rules, 1966, rr. 5 & 6-Social Security Institution not empowered to adjust payments made for particular month in respect of payment due for earlier months-Payment of contribution not made in time- Institution entitled to increase amount by such percentage or amount as may be prescribed-Institution, held, not entitled to use payments made by employer subsequently in any manner Institution likes or to adjust same in respect of earlier period when payment should have been made.

(b)

West Pakistan

---- S. 20.--Adjustment of payments-Principle that "creditor may adjust payment made in respect of any debt" not applicable where relation ship between parties not one of a creditor and a debtor.

(c) Limitation---

--Appeal barred by 8 days-1Pelay sought to be condoned on ground that counsel fell ill for four days and filed appeal after, preparation-- Delay of 4 days for preparation of case, held.' not justified.

Mian Abdur Rashid for Appellant.

This is an appeal under section 64 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. .

2. The respondents were notified to be governed under the aforesaid Ordinance. They started paying social security contributions. They did so for some time. Then they missed allegedly on account of labour disturbances in the factory. Later on they again started making pay ments. These were adjusted towards the payments earlier not made For short payments, increase allowed under the provisions of the Ordinance was made. The respondents challenged the action by way of a complaint which was rejected on 26th December, 1978. They filed an appeal and it was urged that the subsequent payments made should have been adjusted against the period when those were made and those could not have been accounted for the earlier period when the payments had not been made. The plea was accepted by the learned Judge, Social Security Court, Punjab vide order dated 12th September, 1982. This is challenged by the appellant-institution by means of the above-titled appeal.

2-A. The appeal is barred by 8 days and the delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that the learned counsel for the appellant after having been briefed, fell ill for four days and, then, he filed the appeal after proper preparation.

3. On merits it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that when payments are not made for particular months, let us say, January and February but are made for the subsequent months of the year g that is to say, from March to December, it is open to the party entitled to receive the money the appellant that it may adjust the payments made for the month of March, April etc. as against the payments which were due for the months of January & February which had not been made.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has read out provisions of West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 under section 20 sub-clauses (1) and (7) which are to the following effect :--

"20. Amount and payment of contributions. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, the employer shall, in respect of every employee, whether employed by him directly or through any other person pay to the Institution a contribution at such times, at such rate and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) .....................

(7) Any sum deducted from an employee's wages by the employer under this Ordinance shall be deemed to have been entrusted to him for the purpose of paying the employee's contribution in respect of which it was deducted."

He also pointed out rules 5 and 6 from the West Pakistan Employees Social Security (Contributions) Rules, 1966 which are as follows :-

"5. The employer shall submit to the Local Office of the Institution at which he is registered, the copies of pay rolls or contribution schedules referred to in rule 4 (I), within fifteen days of the end of each month, or such extended period, not exceeding forty-five days, as the Institution may allow on good cause being shown for the extension, and at the same time shall pay, at the said Local Office, the total amount of the contributions shown thereon as due.

6. If any employer fails to pay the total amount of contributions within the period prescribed in rule 5, the amount payable shall be increased by one-half per centum per day for each day after the expiry of the prescribed date, subject to the maximum increase provided in subsection (1) of section 23."

5. From the provisions read out by the learned counsel for the appellant and quoted above, no support is found for the proposition that it is open to the appellant Institution to adjust the payments made for particular months in respect of payments due for earlier months which had not been made. On the other hand, a perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that if the payments are not made in time the Institution is entitled to increase by such percentage or amount as may be prescribed. Therefore, it is quite clear that for the payments not made the Institution-. appellant is well provided for. From these provisions it does not, in', any way, follow that the appellant is entitled to use the payments made subsequently, in any manner it likes or to adjust it in respect of earlier when payments should have been made. There is a general principle that creditor may adjust the payment made in respect of any of its debts but that would hardly be applicable where relationship is not that of a credit and a debtor. The appellant is, by no means, a creditor having parted with its money in favour of the respondents. On the other hand, it is demanding money as an imposition by law to be paid by the respondents. Therefore, the relationship being of different kind and by no means having been mutually created the principle of one domain cannot be stretched to be applic4ble to another arena. The appeal is also barred by time and the reason for the condonation of delay .of the counsel being not well, is tenuous. In any case, there was no justification to delay the matter for further four days for preparation of the appeal which could have been done by the learned counsel within a day or two in view of his learning, experience and standing. Therefore, the rights which had come to vest in the respondents by lapse of time, cannot be injuriously affected by condoning the delay in the circumstances of the case.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.