SINDH ABADGARS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED vs SINDH EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, through Commissioner, Karachi and 3 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Sindh High Court order directing the petitioner, Sindh Abadgars Sugar Mills Limited, to register with the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution. The petitioner argued that it already provided medical benefits through an on-site clinic and contended that registration should be contingent upon the Institution taking over the management of said clinic. The core legal question was whether an employer's statutory obligation to register and contribute to the Social Security Institution is conditional upon the Institution assuming control of the employer's existing medical facilities. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the obligation to register and pay contributions under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is a mandatory statutory duty that exists independently of any action or initiative by the Institution. The Court affirmed that while parties may voluntarily enter into arrangements under Section 46 of the Ordinance regarding facility management, such arrangements do not absolve the employer of its primary statutory obligations to register and contribute. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Is an employer's statutory obligation to register with the Social Security Institution conditional upon the Institution taking over the employer's existing medical facilities?
- Does the existence of private medical benefits provided by an employer exempt them from the statutory requirement to register and contribute to the Social Security Institution?
- Can an employer avoid its statutory registration obligations by claiming the Institution failed to implement an arrangement under Section 46 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance 1965?
- Section 20(1), Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance 1965
- Section 46, Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance 1965
' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.--- This petition impugns the order passed by the learned Sindh High Court in C.P. No,968 of 2003 whereby the same was dismissed and the petitioner Mills was directed to get itself registered with the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution, respondent No,1, within a period of one month from the date of the order viz. 20-2-2008.
2. The only argument submitted by Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned Advocate Supreme Court in support of the petition is that the petitioner has already given many benefits to its employees including establishment of a full-fledged clinic/dispensary at its premises which is providing adequate medical cover to them. Learned Advocate Supreme Court further submitted that if the respondent No,1 viz. Sindh Employees Social Security Institution would take over the management of said clinic, the petitioner would not have any objection to get itself registered under the scheme of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965.
3. On the other hand, Mr. S.A. Sarwana, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondent No,1 has submitted that the obligation of the petitioner to get itself registered with the institution is a statutory one and so also the obligation to pay the dues as per the Notification issued by the institution under the Ordinance, which squarely covers the petitioner. Hence the petitioner cannot avoid the obligation by submitting that first the institution should take over the concerned clinic and then they would get registered with the institution. In support of his contention, learned Advocate Supreme Court has cited Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution v. Spencer & Company (Pak.) Ltd. 1998 SCM R 440.
4. When confronted with this argument, Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned Advocate Supreme Court submitted that in terms of the interim order passed by learned Sindh High Court dated 25-9-2007 in C.P. No,D-968 of 2003, both the parties were directed to resolve the controversy under the provision of section 46 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, in terms of which they could enter into an arrangement whereby the facility available at the petitioners Mills could be taken over by the establishment. According to Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned Advocate Supreme Court this order was never implemented by the respondents.
5. We have heard both the learned Advocates Supreme Court. In our opinion, the obligation of the petitioner to get registered with the Institution is a statutory one and in terms of section 20(1) of the Ordinance, it should pay the necessary contribution to the Institution. Such obligation is not dependent upon any action or initiative on the part of the Institution as already held by this Court in Sindh Employees Social Security Institution v. Spencer & Company (Pak.) Ltd. (supra). However, it would still be open for the parties to enter into any arrangement as provided under section 46 of the Ordinance.
' In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition and hence, the same is dismissed. Leave is accordingly refused.