Messrs NATIONAL EMBROIDERY MILLS Ltd. And Others vs THE EMPLOYEES!'SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE And Other
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the view that 'attendance allowance', being in the nature of an incentive, forms part of 'wages' as defined under the relevant social security legislation for the purpose of making contributions to the Employees' Social Security Institution. The core legal question is whether such an attendance allowance constitutes wages under section 2(3) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The Supreme Court noted a conflict of judicial views on the subject and granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative pronouncement. The key principle established is that conflicting decisions regarding the interpretation of statutory definitions of wages in social security laws require authoritative settlement by the apex court through a regular appeal.
- Does attendance allowance constitute part of wages under section 2(3) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Can an attendance allowance given as an incentive be subjected to contributions by the Employees' Social Security Institution?
- Section 2(3), West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965
- Section 57, West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--By two separate petitions the petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 10th of May, 1978 whereby their first appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
2. A question arose whether the "attendance allowance" which was in the nature of an incentive formed a part of wages as defined in section 2(3) of the West Pakistan Employees, Social Security Ordinance, 1965 or not for the purposes of making contribution to the Social Security Institution. The Institution treated it to be a part of the wages. A complaint filed by the petitioners under section 57 of the Ordinance claiming that it did not form part of the wages was rejected. An appeal against it failed in the High Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners informed us that there are other petitions on the same subject (C.P. 291 of 1982, C.Ps. 225-29 of 1982 and C.Ps. 237-41 of 1982) already pending involving the same question. It is also stated that there is a conflict of view on the question as different views with regard to the same question have been taken.
3. With a view to resolve the conflict in the decisions and to give en authoritative pronouncement on the subject, leave to appeal is granted.
4. Security Rs.2,500 in each case.
5. The appeals to be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file such additional documents as they consider necessary.