THAI JUTE MILLS LIMITED, MUZAFFARGARH Versus VICE-COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE

MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J: ‑‑ This appeal is directed against the order dated 28‑11‑1984 passed by the Social Security Court in review application of respondent through which earlier order passed by the said Court on 25‑4‑1984 was reviewed and the appellant was held liable to pay social security contribution on the cycle allowance being paid to the employees.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under section 58 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, review of the previous order could only be made by the Social Security Court if some new facts had been brought on record whereas in the present case, the order has been reviewed merely on the ground that Karachi High Court in some other case had declared smoking allowance as part of the wages, as such the case was not covered by section 58 and the review application was not maintainable.

3. We have gone through the earlier order dated 25‑4‑1984 passed by the Social Security Court, through which appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Director on the complaint filed against the demand raised by the respondent for social security contribution in respect of cycle allowance, was accepted and it was held that such an allowance was not part of wages because the same was being paid only to such employees who worked for twenty days in a month and not to all the employees generally irrespective of the number of days for which they worked. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant has considerable force because it was not a case where some new facts had been brought to the notice of the Social Security Court within the contemplation of section 58, therefore, the review application was not maintainable. If the respondent was feeling aggrieved against the order dated 25‑4‑1984, the same should have been challenged under section 54 of the Ordinance.

4. This appeal is accepted, the order dated 28‑11‑1984 passed by the Social Security Court in review is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.

AA. /T‑53/L

Appeal accepted.