HABIB JUTE MILLS LIMITED, JAUHARABAD Versus DIRECTOR, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION (LOCAL OFFICE), SARGODHA

ORDER

This is an appeal under section 64 of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, against the appellate order of the Punjab Social Security Court Punjab dated 23‑5‑1990 confirming order dated 3rd December, 1988 of Commissioner Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution, Lahore.

2. During the checking of the record of the appellant, it was found by the Social Security Officer of the area that the appellant had paid less contribution towards the social security years 1984‑85, 1985‑86. A notice was, therefore, issued to the appellant by the Employees' Social Security Institute calling upon it to pay a sum of Rs.3,46,646 on account of contribution less paid and 50 per cent. statutory increase. By its letter dated 26th of November, 1986, the appellant required the Institution to supply the details of amounts worked out under various heads of account. In response to this letter, the Social Security Institute, on 31st of December, 1986, informed the appellant that the details duly stood mentioned in its earlier letter dated 11th of November, 1986.

3. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant filed a complaint under section 57 of the Punjab Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, for adjudication of the dispute before the Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution. His complaint was, however, dismissed as being without any merit, by the Institute vide its order dated 3rd of December, 1988.

4. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Judge, Social Security Court, Punjab, on 23rd of May, 1990.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, has contended that the amount demanded has been worked out by the respondents without any basis contrary to the provisions of sections 20 and 22 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, and further that the appellant had been asked to contribute in respect of the workmen employed by the contractors and not by it which is against law.

6. Before proceeding to examine the arguments raised by the learned counsel, it needs to be pointed out that under section 64 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, an appeal lies to this Court against an order passed by the Social Security Court if it involves a substantial question of law. In the present case, no such question falls for determination as the dispute raises a question which is purely factual in nature. In this view of the matter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this short ground.

7. Even otherwise, the contentions raised by the learned counsel are without force. It is evident from a bare perusal of the record that not only the appellant but also its contractors were allowed many opportunities to produce record before the respondents in support of their assertions but they miserably failed to do so. At the request of the appellant, the matter was enquired into by three different officers, who submitted their reports pointing out that the record was incomplete and was in any case neither authentic nor reliable.

8. The first report is dated 20th October, 1987 by Mr. Mahboob Ahmad Bhatti, Deputy Director (Administration) and Chaudhry Rahmat Ali Shahid, Deputy Director (F&A). There is another report of Mr. Muhammad Yusuf Saleem, Director, Social Security, pointing out the various irregularities in the record. On 3rd of December, 1988, it was reported by Mr. Mahboob Ahmad Bhatti, Deputy Director (A) and Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqui, Audit Officer, that they had visited the premises of the appellant on 27th of August, 1988, for checking the record in presence of Raza Muhammad Paracha, Administrative Manager, and Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, an employee of the Personnel Department and both of them had agreed that the figures as given in the report dated 20th of October, 1987, were correct and were taken from the account books. They were consequently asked to produce the record of the contractors as mentioned in para. 3 of the report but only wages payment register in respect of the contractors was produced. It was noticed that the register produced was not only incomplete but also contained entries in?cons1stent with the earlier stand of the appellant. It was observed that the record produced shows wages at the rate of Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 2,200 per month, although wages rate at Jauharabad was not more than Rs.600 in average. The record produced by the appellant was, therefore, held to be not authentic and inspiring confidence or reliable.

9. As is obvious from the above, at the request made by the appellant itself, it was granted many opportunities to substantiate its case that in fact, it was not the appellant but its contractors who were employers of the labour but it failed to substantiate this contention by producing cogent evidence or material. That being so, the argument of the learned counsel has no merits.

10. As regards the reference made by the learned counsel to the provisions of sections 20 and 22 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, it is to be seen that subsection (6) of section 20 where the mode of payment for remuneration is given makes it difficult to determine the amount of wages for computing the contribution, the Commissioner is authorised to determine such wages. Under section 22, the officials of the institution are authorised to check the books and record of the appellant ?company. Subsection (3) of section 22 provides that in case of failure of employer to maintain record or to submit returns or non‑compliance of the provisions of subsection (1) or in case of difficulty to ascertain the identity of persons required to be secured or the amount of contribution payable, the contribution shall be assessed on the basis of such evidence as the Institution may find satisfactory for this purpose. That being so, the Commissioner acted clearly in accordance with law and no valid exception can be taken to the impugned order. As already noticed, the representative of the appellant had admitted before the officer holding the inquiry that they do not dispute the correctness of the figures mentioned in the earlier report dated 20th of October, 1989. It shows that the net amount payable by the appellant was Rs.3,05,859.93 at that time. The Commissioner, Social Security was, therefore, correct in assessing the liability of the appellant at that amount.

In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./H‑41/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.