| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3516 2016 SLD 3516 2016 PLC 499 2016 PLJ 151 |
Sindh High Court
C.Ps. Nos. D-64 and D-79 of 1998, decided on 25th March,2016. Dates of hearing; 18th, 25th February, 3rd and 10thMarch, 2016.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE AND ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, JUSTICE
S.M. Iqbal for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.D-64 and D-79 of 1998).Ms. Masooda Siraj for
Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.64 and 79 of 1998).Asim Mansoor Khan, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan and Dilawar Hussain Standing Counsel on Court Notice.
C.Ps. Nos. D-64 and D-79 of 1998, decided on 25th March,2016. Dates of hearing; 18th, 25th February, 3rd and 10thMarch, 2016.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE AND ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, JUSTICE
S.M. Iqbal for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.D-64 and D-79 of 1998).Ms. Masooda Siraj for
Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.64 and 79 of 1998).Asim Mansoor Khan, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan and Dilawar Hussain Standing Counsel on Court Notice.
METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPN. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTORVSEMPLOYEES�� OLDAGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION AND THE BOARD THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Employees Old Age Benefits Act, 1976
Section: 2(bb),33,35,43,44
Law: Employees Old Age Benefits (Board of Trustees) Rules, 1977
Section: 11,18
(a) Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)--- --------Sections 33, 35, 43 & 44---Employees' Old-Age Benefits (Board of Trustees) Rules, 1977, Rr.11 & 18---Determination of questions and claims---Appeal to the Board of Trustees---Quorum of the Board for deciding appeals---Question before the High Court was that as to whether the Board, comprising of one or two members, was authorized to hear the appeals---Section 44 of Employees Old-Age Benefit Act, 1976 provided that Federal Government had the authority to make rules regarding the powers and functions of the Board---Section 44(2)(xiii) of the Act provided regulation of the manner and procedure for disposal of appeals by the Board---Rule 18(v) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits (Board of Trustees) Rules, 1977, deals with hearing of the appeals, and the Board had the authority that instead of hearing the appeals itself, the Board could appoint a Committee of the Board to hear and decide the appeals on its behalf and the decision of the Committee was to be considered as the decision of the Board---Board had categorically mentioned that the quorum for appeals involving dispute of more than Rs.20 lac would be of two members comprising of Chairman and any other member and for less than that amount, the quorum would comprise of one member only---Impugned orders in appeals had been passed by the Board comprising of Chairman and a member; hence the quorum was in order and no illegality had been committed (in the constitution of the Board). (b) Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)--- --------S. 2(bb)--------Employee---Scope---Person hired through independent person/contractor falls within definition of employee as provided under S.2(bb) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976---Employer, therefore, was liable to pay the contribution for those persons (hired through/by the contractor) to Employees' Old-Age Benefit Institute---High Court maintained the impugned orders---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. SESSI v. Consolidated Sugar Mills Limited 1989 SCMR 888; SESSI v. Employees, Premier Tobacco Industries Limited 1990 PLC 6; SESSI v. Modern Textile Mills Limited 1999 PLC…