| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 2047 1989 SLD 2047 1989 PLC 993 |
Sindh High Court
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 22 of 1988, decided on 22nd February, 1989.
HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J
S.A. Sarwana for Appellant. Muhammad Humayoon for
Respondent.
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 22 of 1988, decided on 22nd February, 1989.
HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J
S.A. Sarwana for Appellant. Muhammad Humayoon for
Respondent.
SIND EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION
VS
Messrs QUETTA TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (IX of 1965)-- ---S. 25, proviso--Object of S. 25 of Social Security Ordinance is on the one hand to prevent unjust enrichment of person to whom any contribution is paid and on the other to restore money to its real owner--Contributions paid to the Social Security institution under erroneous belief--Refund of--Limitation--Juristic basis of obligation and object of S. 25 of Social Security Ordinance, 1965--Application for the refund to be made within six months of the date when contribution was made--Where contribution had been paid on the Cost of Living Allowance, proviso to S. 25 was applicable. Proviso to section 25 of the West Pakistan Social Security Ordinance, 1965 provides that no contribution or excess amount on any contribution shall be refunded unless an application for such refund is made within six months of the date on which the contribution was paid. Section 25 of the Ordinance clearly applied only to cases where any contribution paid to the Institution under the erroneous belief that it was payable under the provisions of the Ordinance and shall be entitled to the refund of the excess amount of the contribution where such contribution had been paid at higher rate than the rate prescribed, and where refund application had to be made within six months from the date of suet contribution. The present case was one where such contribution had been paid on the Cost of Living Allowance. That being the position, the proviso to section 25 of the Ordinance did apply and could have been relied upon by the Institution for refusing to refund the contribution on Cost of Living Allowance. [p. 9961 A The juristic basis of the obligation under section 25 is not founded upon any contract or tort but upon a third category of law, namely, quasi-contract or restitution. The object with which section 25 is enacted is on one hand to prevent unjust enrichment of person to whom any contribution is paid and on the other to restore money to its real or proper owner. No one can be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the cost or expense of another. And it is with this object in view that section 25 is enacted. The person…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492