Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199,184(1),270AA(6)

Law: Employees Old Age Benefits Act, 1976

Section: 2(P),10,12,12(3),13(2),33,35

✅ Summary Multiple petitioners (companies/establishments) challenged EOBI contribution demands (2009–2011) and orders passed under the Employees’ Old-Age Benefits law, alleging mala fide actions, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of the 18th Amendment. Petitioners argued: Demands were raised without lawful calculation or basis Appeals were dismissed by an unlawfully constituted authority Federal control over EOBI post-18th Amendment was unconstitutional Respondents argued: Petitions were not maintainable due to: Lack of proper authorization (no board resolution) Availability of statutory remedies EOBI and its law remain valid federal legislation protected under the Constitution Court held: Factual disputes (contribution calculation) cannot be decided under Article 199 Petitioners bypassed statutory remedies under the Act Issues of federal vs provincial control fall under Supreme Court jurisdiction, not High Court EOB law is welfare legislation and remains valid 👉 Petitions were dismissed as misconceived and not maintainable. ⚖️ Sections / Laws Used Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan Article 184(1), Constitution (Supreme Court jurisdiction) Article 270AA(6), Constitution (protection of existing laws post-18th Amendment) Employees’ Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 Section 2(p) (definition of wages) Sections 10 & 12 (records & returns) Section 12(3), 13(2) (demand & recovery) Section 33 (complaint) Section 35 (appeal) Land Revenue Act, 1967 (recovery mechanism) Minimum Wages for Unskilled Workers Ordinance, 1969 🧾 Two 2-Word Case Descriptions EOBI Dispute Contribution Liability O R D E R Through these petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Petitioners are seeking the following relief: Uphold all the grounds urged above in favour of the petitioners and set aside both the above orders as illegal and arbitrary. That rejecting the request to keep appeals pending till constitution of a valid Board of Trustees, could not deprive the petitioners from arguing the appeals on merits. That the alleged interim stay order in the intra-court appeal cannot be treated as a final order…