Pakistan Case Law
2006 PLC 263

MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (Regd.) through Treasurer vs GOVERNMENT

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 PLC 263
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Constitution No.D-648 of 2005
Date2006-01-19
Judge(s)Zia Perwaz and Sajjad Ali Shah
Authored byZia Perwaz
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This constitutional petition challenged a demand notice issued by the Social Security Institution requiring the petitioner, a registered society operating an educational institution, to pay social security contributions. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's educational institution qualified as an "establishment" under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, and whether the High Court should adjudicate factual disputes regarding employee numbers and contribution amounts. Relying on established precedent from a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, the Court held that the definition of "establishment" under the Ordinance had already been authoritatively interpreted, and the Court was bound by that view. Furthermore, regarding the determination of the quantum of contributions and factual verification, the Court held that the Ordinance provides a self-contained machinery for such determinations. Citing Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that where a statute provides a specific forum for dispute resolution, the High Court should not bypass these statutory remedies. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, directing the petitioner to exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does an educational institution fall within the definition of an 'establishment' under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition to determine factual disputes regarding the quantum of social security contributions when the statute provides a specific forum for such matters?
  • Is a Division Bench of the High Court bound by a previous Division Bench decision regarding the interpretation of a statutory definition?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 2(ii), Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965
Social Security Ordinanceestablishment definitioneducational institutionstatutory remedyexhaustion of remediesconstitutional petitiondismissal in limine

1. ' ZIA PERWAZ, J.---This petition is directed against the demand of respondent No,2 vide their letter dated 10-5-2005, calling upon the petitioners for demand of a sum of Rs,1,14,590. The petitioner is a registered Society, running an educational institution under the name and style of "Light House Public School" at Malir Cantt. Karachi.

2. ' The contention of Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the establishment as defined under section 2(11) of the Social Security Ordinance 1965, does not cover the school being run by the petitioner. In this regard he stated that there are two conflicting views one adopted by the Lahore High Court in the case of Don Bosco High School Empress Road, Lahore v. Director, Social Security (2005 PLC 110) and other by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of St. Bonaventure's Boys High Schools Tilak Incline and Qasimabad Hyderabad v. Province of Sindh (2004 PLC 381).

3. ' The learned counsel further proceeded to argue that in addition to the question of the institution of the petitioner being covered by the Social Security Ordinance, there are other questions requiring consideration as to the number of employees, the determination of quantum of benefits, verification of record and other relief measures necessary for making payment of contribution which requires calling for determination of this Court in the present petition. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents.

4. ' Mr. Khalid Habibullah, learned counsel for Respondents Nos.2 and 3 has advanced his arguments and opposed the petition, the same view is also adopted by Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, the learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh, appearing on behalf of Respondent No,!.

5. ' The question as to whether the establishment as defined under section 2 (ii) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 was examined by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of St. Bonaventure's Boys High Schools Tilak Incline and Qasimabad Hyderabad v. Province of Sindh (2004 PLC 381) (supra). The definition of establishment as provided under the Ordinance having been considered by a Division Bench of this Court. Contention of the learned counsel that the definition of establishment existing in other statutes does not carry any weight. It is settled law that when a definition is provided for by a statute the same has to be considered. This exercise has been carried on in elaborate manner earlier by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid matter with which we are in respectful agreement.

6. ' The view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court is even otherwise binding on this DB in view of the law laid down in the case of Multi Line Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others (1995 SC 423).

7. ' The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the question of determination of quantum of amount is concerned, we are afraid that these points call for determination of facts for which remedy is provided by the Ordinance and the authority constituted therein is fully competent to carry on such an exercise which is required to be conducted by way of the present petition as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Kaniz Fatima v. Muhammad Salim (2001 SCM R 1493), wherein it has been observed as under:-- "Where a particular statute provides self-contained machinery for determination of questions arising under the statute and law provides a remedy by appeal or revision to another Tribunal fully competent to give any relief, any indulgence to the contrary by High Court is bound to produce a sense of distrust in statutory Tribunals constitutional petition, without exhausting remedy provided by the statute, did not lie in circumstances."

8. ' In view of the foregoing discussion the petition is dismissed in limine. However as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner the above order shall not prejudice the petitioner from availing such other remedy as may be available according to law.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.