PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE Versus MASOOD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., SHCIKHUPURA ROAD, FAISALABAD

This appeal under section 64 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is directed against the order dated 25‑5‑1990 passed by the Social Security Court (Faisalabad Camp) through which the appeal filed by the respondents against the order dated 8‑2‑1990 passed by the Commissioner on the complaint of the respondents under section 57 of the Ordinance has been accepted.

2. The respondents filed a complaint before the Commissioner under section 57 of the Social Security Ordinance against a demand of Rs.1,33,200 made from him. The Commissioner through order dated 8‑2‑1990 disposed of the appeal in the following terms:‑

"It is also fact that the demand of Institution for earlier period is still sub judice before the High Court on various grounds. The fate of the present case will, therefore, be decided according to the decision of the High Court in above‑referred case as and when it is decided. The complaint is, therefore, disposed of accordingly."

3. On appeal filed by the respondent the Social Security Court (Faisalabad Camp) set aside the said order and decided the complaint filed by the respondent on merits and held that the demand made by the present appellants was not justified which has been challenged in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection through a written application that the appeal had not been filed by the Institution as the memo of appeal and the Vakalatanama filed with it had not been signed by a duly authorised person. He referred to section 18 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to argue that it was the Commissioner who under this section has been constituted a Principal Officer who alone could file the appeal or the Vice‑Commissioner to whom he could assign his all or any of the functions.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record copy of the summary placed before the Commissioner for taking a decision for filing this appeal or otherwise and obtaining orders accordingly. The said summary shows that the facts in detail were narrated therein and the opinion/decision of the Commissioner was solicited whether to file appeal or not. The summary was in the first instance placed before the Vice‑Commissioner who approved the proposal made therein that the present appeal should lie filed. After the signatures of Vice‑Commissioner the same was put up before the Commissioner who agreed with the said proposal as approved by the Vice Commissioner. It was specifically mentioned that Mr. Zafar Iqbal, Advocate who has filed this appeal and signed the memo of appeal as counsel would be engaged to file the appeal.

6. In view of the approval of the said summary and the proposal made therein there is no scope to the argument and hold that the appeal was not filed by the Commissioner or the Vice‑Commissioner or the same did not have their approval. Mr. Zafar Iqbal, Advocate was expressly engaged by the Commissioner as counsel to file this appeal. Mr. Zafar Iqbal, Advocate was, therefore, competent to file the appeal as he was duly authorised person to do so. As a matter of fact no further order or authority was required by him to file the appeal, therefore, the objection is repelled.

7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that as a matter of fact the respondent could not be held to be an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 59 of the Ordinance to file appeal against the order of Commissioner because the Commissioner only passed an order for the postponement of the decision on merits in the complaint filed by him till the decision in the matter was taken by the High Court relating to the previous period because in his opinion the decision of the High Court had material bearing upon the merits of this case and as a result thereof since the complaint shall be deemed to be still pending having not been disposed of on merits no appeal could be, filed as there was no decision on merits against the respondent, has considerable force. Learned counsel for the respondent when questioned as to how the respondent could feel aggrieved against such an order had no plausible answer. The learned lower Appellate Court decided the complaint of the appellants on merits, in appeal which was not competent as the Commissioner had not decided the said complaint on merits.

8. The order dated 25‑5‑1990 passed by 'the Social Security Court (Faisalabad Camp). for the foregoing reasons is not sustainable. This appeal is accepted. The said order is set aside. In the result order dated 8‑2‑1990 passed by the Commissioner is restored according to which the complaint of the respondent shall be deemed to be pending and adjourned sine die till the decision of the case pending in the High Court as observed therein which shall be revived and disposed of after the case by this Court was decided. There will be no order as to costs.

H.B.T./P‑38/L Appeal accepted.