Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 2998 2007 SLD 2998 2007 PLJ 183
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 1059 of 2001, heard on 26.5.2006.
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
Ch. Ihsan-ul-Haq Bhatti, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Zafar Iqbal Malik, Advocate for
Respondent.

NAVEEDULLAH KHAN BHATTI, PROP. M/s. RAVI AUTOS PETROL PUMP

VS

DIRECTOR, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, Lahore and 2 others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

(i) Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965- ----S. 2 (8), Term "Employee" defined--Explained--An employee in order to fall within the ambit of legal provision of the Ordinance, has to be drawing a salary of less than Rs. 3000/- P.M. [P. 184] A (ii) Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965- ----S. 57(f)--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 115--Petrol pump employees--Contribution towards Social Security--Denial--Demand notices warrants for recovery of contribution amount--Suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed--Controversy between parties fell within ambit of S. 57 of Ordinance, 1965--Any dispute as to the rate of contribution payable by an employer is to be determined by the Security Institution--Controversy is required to be agitated, in the first instance, before security institution and of aggrieved of its decision, these are remedies by way of appeal before Labour Court. [P. 185] B & C (iii) Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1959- ----S. 57--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115--Setting up petrol pump--Demand of Social Security contribution--Issuance of notification--Petitioner disputes the basis on which establishment was included is notification, is not sufficient for holding that it was in excess of authority, conferred by Ordinance--Powers to issue notification undeniably vests in respondent institution--Factual dispute raised by petitioner is qualitatively different from question of vires. Judgment The petitioner-plaintiff impugns the concurrent orders of the learned trial Court dated 18.1.2000 and of the learned appellate Court dated 31.3.2001 whereby the plaint filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The facts narrated by him are straightforward. The petitioner is the owner of a petrol pump where, according to learned counsel, he employed two persons at a salary in excess of Rs. 3000/- per month. According to him, the provisions of the Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 are not attracted to the petitioner's business. Even if the provisions of the said Ordinance are applicable, the two employees do not fall within the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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