MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER, C.T.R., LAHORE

1. This appeal against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, I Social Security Court at Karachi is filed under section 64 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 by M/s. A.F. Furguson & Co., a firm of Chartered Accountants, practising at Karachi.

2. The appellants after the provisions of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 were made applicable to such institutions in 1979 made contribution under that Ordinance in respect of their employees drawing 1,500 per month. The appellants, however, did not make contributions in respect of trainees registered with them as according hem under the amended provision of Chartered Accountants Ordinance 1961 such trainee were re‑defined, to be "'Students" and not as "Employees". Prior to the amendment in the said Ordinance such trainees were known as "Article Clerk" and "Audit Clerk".

3. The Director, Social Security, West Wharf, on checking the record of the Appellants for the period between Rs1979 to 1985 found than an amount of .3,68,440.57 as contribution on account of students registered with them was not paid and he by his letter dated 18‑10‑19136 required them to pay he same. The appellant filed an appeal under section 57 of the Provincial Employee Social Security Ordinance, .1965 before the Commissioner, Sindh Employees Social Security Institution, Karachi without any success. The appellants after being unsuccessful in their appeal before the I‑Social Security Court at Karachi have filed the present appeal.

4. Admittedly the students who are registered with the appellants for training are paid Rs.400 per month till passing of provisional Intermediate Examination, Rs.l000 per month till they pass final examination of Chartered Accountancy and then their salary is increased to Rs.1,500 per month. Commerce Graduates who register themselves as students are expected to complete training and examination within 4 years while non‑commerce graduates have to complete within a period of 5 years.

5. The appellants throughout have been contending that trainees registered with them although they are paid certain stipends and are under a contract to receive training are "students" as defined in the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961 and not the "Employees".' Under the circumstances the appellants are not liable to make contribution in respect of such students under the Provincial Social Security Ordinance, 1965. Mr. Muhammad Rehan Aqeel, Advocate for the appellants, repeated his such arguments before this Court and in support of his such contentions referred to the case reported in AIR 1929 Lahore 573.

6. Mr. S.A. Sarwana, Advocate for the respondents in this appeal, mainly contended that for the purpose of Social Security Ordinance, term "Employee has been defined in its section 2(8) and includes a person working under contract of apprenticeship. Apprentice or a trainee registered with the appellants is a student" under the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961 but such a person would be included in the definition provided by section 2(8) of the Social Security Ordinance. The definition provided by the Chartered accountants Ordinance, 1961 will not be relevant for the purpose of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965. In support of his contention he referred to the case of Rahim Jan & Co. v. Sindh Employees Social Security Institution at Karachi published in 1991 PLC 201.

7. The case of Indian jurisdiction referred to by Mr. Muhammad Rehan Aqeel, Advocate for the appellants, is a case of a student of an Engineering college, who for the purpose of practical training in the institution received remuneration for the work done in the workshop. The decision relates to the definition of "Wages" given in the Workmen's Compensation Act, and while considering such aspect of the case it was held that in such circumstances relationship of Master and Servant did not exist. The decision under reference therefore has no application to the facts of the present case.

8. In the case of Rahim Jan & Co. referred to by Mr. SA. Sarwana, Advocate for the respondents, it was held that all persons working under contract of apprenticeship with the institutions as that of the appellants will be treated as employees for the purpose of the said Ordinance. Following the decision in that case apprentices registered with the appellants as "Trainees/Students" are "Employees" and the Appellants are required by law to make contribution in respect of them as well.

9. For the foregoing reasons I had by my short order passed on 15‑12‑1991 dismissed the appeal.

10. H.B.T./A‑1263/K Appeal dismissed.