Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 1491 2006 SLD 1491 2006 PLD 158
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.420 of 2002, decision dated: 13-01-2006. (On appeal from the Judgment of Sindh High Court Karachi dated 16-3-2001 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.35 of 1990)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, JJ
Khalid Habibullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Muhammad Hamayun, Advocate Supreme Court.

SINDH EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, KARACHI

VS

Messrs PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL, CLUB ROAD, KARACHI SINDH EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, KARACHI vs Messrs PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL, CLUB ROAD, KARACHI

Law:

Section:

(a) Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)-------S. 2(30)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine whether guaranteed payment made by employer to its employees being uniform and regular in character would not fall within the ambit of expression `wages' in terms of S.2(30) of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. (b) Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)- --Preamble, S. 2(30)---Expression `wages' and `remunerations'---Scope---Guaranteed payment---Mutual understanding of employee and employer---Effect---Dispute between employer and authorities was with regard. to payment of contribution of guaranteed payment---High Court had found that such payment was not part of wages of employees---Validity---In plain words wages meant all kinds of payments which might be covered by definition of remuneration for services rendered by a person and word `remuneration' had greater significance than `wages' which might include payments in respect of allowances or services rendered and such other payments---Definition of term "wages" in S.2(30) of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, was comprehensive and exhaustive and except occasional payment which was not considered as part of wages, all payments which were made under any rule or instrument, contract or settlement either as a statutory or contractual obligation must be treated as part of wages, unless specifically excluded from definition of wages under the law---Concept of social security contribution was to promote welfare of working class---Payments made and expenses incurred by employer on welfare and well-being of his employees as his obligation were included in the definition of wages, therefore, provisions of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, could not be construed in a manner which could destroy the purpose and defeat its object---If employer in discharge of his contractual or statutory obligation had paid amount to an employee for service rendered by him, such amount would be treated as part of wages in terms of S.2(30) of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965---Notwithstanding mutual…
🔒
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