Law:

Section:

ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---The above titled two civil appeals arise out of common judgment dated, 25-4-2008, passed by a learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court at Karachi, whereby, petitions filed by the present appellants, along with another identical .Constitutional Petition No.D-165 of 2006, by some other petitioner, involving similar controversy, were dismissed. We, therefore, propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.   Briefly stated, relevant facts forming background of this litigation are that the two appellants i.e. Messrs City School (Pvt.) Ltd, and the Citizen Foundation both running educational institutions, with the only distinction in their cases that the latter one (Citizens Foundation) claims to be doing so on charitable basis, have challenged the two notifications of identical nature dated 5-12-1996 and 6-3-2003 respectively, issued by the Govt. of Sindh in exercise of its powers conferred by subsection (iii) to section 1 of Sindh Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (in short "Ordinance of 1965") , thereby, amongst others, including the names of their respective educational institutions in the list of Establishments, whose employees will be now covered under the Ordinance of 1965 and entitled to the benefits of their schemes to the extent and in the manner as provided under sections 35 to 45 of the Ordinance of 1965. The names of the present appellants respectively appear at Serial Nos.20 to 22 of the notification, dated 5-2-1996 and Serial No.324 of the notification, dated 6-3-2003.   In a nutshell, in both the petitions before the High Court, grievance of the petitioners was that their educational institutions, which have been subjected to the scheme of Ordinance of 1965 through impugned notifications issued by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 , were not the institutions covered by the definition of word "establishment" as defined under section 2(11)  of the Ordinance of  1965.   Mr Arshad Tayabaly, learned counsel for the appellant addressing the court in Civil Appeal No.1313 of 2008, vehemently contended that under subsection (11) to section 2 (ibid), defining word…