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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑434 of 1983, decided on 16th January, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court Karachi dated 25‑8‑1983 passed in Constitutional Petition No. D‑385 of 1983).
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Converted into appeal on consent statement of parties entering into agreement and disposed of in terms thereof.
Mansoorul Arfin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Dastagir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Aziz Munshi, Deputy Attorney‑General instructed by Nizam Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th January, 1984.
‑‑ The petitioner company owns a sugar mill where they employed different classes of employees, including permanent employees, temporary seasonal employees, daily wages workers and badli workers. A dispute has arisen between the petitioners and the Deputy Director, Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution, respondent No.2 herein, over the demand for contribution by the petitioners with respect to each and every person working in the mill irrespective of his status as an employee. According to respondent No.2 all classes of workers come within the preview of law as 'insured person' and, there fore, the petitioners are liable to pay contribution even for badli, temporary and seasonal workers. In pursuance of this a demand for contribution was made, which has been challenged by the petitioners by means of Constitutional Petition No. D‑385 of 1983 in the High Court of Sind at Karachi, which is said to have been admitted to regular hearing. The petitioners also moved an application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 9(a)(1) of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981 praying the Court to restrain and prohibit the respondents from effecting the recovery of amount claimed by them. The learned Judges of the Division Bench who heard the application for interim relief, however, by their order dated 25‑8‑1983 declined to grant the prayer and instead adopted the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondents "that if this petition succeeds the amount shall be refunded". The petitioners feeling aggrieved, by this order has brought this petition for special leave to appeal.
On 14‑12‑1983 when this petition came up for hearing before this Court, in view of the short point involved in this case, notice was ordered to the learned Deputy Attorney‑General.
Today the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Deputy Attorney‑General are present before us and have requested, in view of the consent arrangement between the parties, that this petition may be converted into an appeal and disposed of in terms of the agreement between the parties. It is agreed that the petitioners may instead of making payment of the contribution amount demanded from the year 1975‑76 to 1982‑83, which amount works out at Rs.7,35,361 (as per statement placed on record) be deposited with the Nazir of the High Court by the petitioners within two weeks. The amount so deposited will be invested by the Nazir in Khas Deposits and will be subject to the final decision of the Constitutional Petition pending in the High Court. In case the amount is deposited as agreed, the respondents shall not take any proceedings for recovery of the same.
In view of the consent statement as above, we convert this petition into appeal and dispose it of in terms thereof with no orders, as to cost. At the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties we would further request the High Court to give priority to this matter and dispose of the Constitutional Petition within a period of six months, if possible.
M. Z. M. Order accordingly
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer