GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER CO. OF PAK. LTD. Versus EMPLOYEES' OLD-AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION
1. SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J: ‑‑ The petitioners through this petition have prayed for the following reliefs:‑‑
2. "(i) That the orders, acts and actions of the respondents in violation of the law and the status quo order dated 10‑6‑1992 are illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and hence of no legal effect. Even otherwise no deposit of any amount is provided for filing petition under section 33 of the Act.
(ii) That the resort to the provisions of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and/or issuance of orders/notices actions and taking away four vehicles of the company are illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(iii) That four vehicles of the company taken away by the respondents be returned/released and handed over to the company by the respondents in the same condition as they took away.
(iv) That even otherwise the four vehicles of the company taken away/attached should have been sealed to avoid unauthorised use of the same and unauthorised use of these vehicles by the respondents and their colleagues is illegal and the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 should personally compensate the petitioners for such illegal use and losses and damages caused to these vehicles of the company.
(v) That the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 should compensate the petitioners personally due to hampering of the company's work due to illegal taking away of four vehicles of the company and thereby losses caused to the company. .
(vi) To declare and hold that the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 have no powers under the Land Revenue Act and they have not been duly authorised/appointed and notified to hold/act or exercise any powers under the Land Revenue Act hold/act or exercise any powers under the Land Revenue Act.
(vii) That declare and hold as already held by Supreme Court that the Institution is not a Government Department or under the Government of Pakistan but it is a statutory body created under the Act and direct the respondents to stop misrepresentation, remove such text from their letter pads/documents and remove the listing of their name from the pink pages (Federal Government) of the Telephone Directory now and in future.
(viii) To award compensation to the petitioners from the personal pocket of the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 for the illegal acts and actions taken by them in violation of the law.
(ix) Pass such other orders, declarations and/or directions as may appear to this Hon'ble Court just, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(x) To direct the respondents to pay the cost of this petition to the petitioners."
3. The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioners are a private limited company having their office in Karachi and a factory at Karachi. The respondent No. 1 is a statutory body established by the Government under the Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The establishment of the petitioners has been covered under the Act and they have been paying due contributions for their covered employees. The respondent No. 3 called upon the petitioners to make available the documents mentioned therein. The respondent vide their letter dated 9‑5‑1992 called upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.10,96,425 which has been determined to be due and payable by the petitioners. This letter was followed by a notice dated 27‑5‑1992 under the Land Revenue Act.
4. The petitioners filed a petition under section 33 of the Act before the Institution and the adjudicating authority granted status quo dated 10-06-1992 it is the case of the petitioners that on 14-06-1992 under the directions of the respondent No.2, respondents Nos. 3 to 5 reached the Landhi factory of the petitioners' company and demanded the amount. They above position and the status quo order but they paid no heed and bent upon mischief and seized four vehicles. Hence the present petition. The above petition was admitted for regular hearing on 18‑6‑1992. Notice of application was issued for 22‑6‑1992. On 22‑6‑1992 Mr. MA.M. Namazi, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 1.
5. The respondents were directed to decide the adjudication proceedings within one month from 22‑6‑1992 and also not to take any coercive measures till the disposal of the application. Mr. MA.M. Namazi, Advocate has stated at the Bar that the adjudicating proceedings were already completed and the petitioners has already preferred appeal against the decision.
6. By consent of the parties, we have heard the arguments on the main petition as well as the application. .
7. In a case reported in 1987 CLC 2531, a Division Bench of this Court comprising Ajmal Mian, J. (now Judge Supreme Court) and one of us (Syed Haider Ali Pirzada, J.) while construing the provisions of section 57 of the Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965) and Regulation No. 5 of Sindh Social Security (Procedure for deciding complaints and Review of Decisions) Regulations, 1983 observed that "if the question of liability to pay contribution is determined through the machinery/ forums provided under the Ordinance, the same will become due and resort can be made to the provisions of the Land Revenue Act for recovery as the arrears of land revenue". It was further held that "till the time the Institution decides the question of liability in terms of section 57 of the Ordinance, the resort to the provisions of the Land Revenue Act was not warranted by law."
8. In the instant case the adjudicating authority has already determined the liability and the petitioners have already filed appeal against the determination of the liability. We, therefore, declare that till the time the appeal preferred by the petitioners is decided, the resort to the provisions of the Land Revenue Act is not warranted by law.
9. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. Consequently Misc. Application No. 2887/92 is dismissed having become infructuous.
10. H.B.T./G‑325/K Order accordingly.