SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIA6 SECURITY INSTITUTION vs Messrs KOHINOOR
The petitioner filed a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed its Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 64 of the Social Security Ordinance against the order of the Social Security Court. The core legal question raised was whether the respondent's appeal before the Social Security Court was incompetent under section 59 of the Ordinance due to the absence of a proper decision under section 57. The Supreme Court held that since the point was not raised or argued before the High Court or the Social Security Court, despite being mentioned in the written objections, it could not be permitted to be raised for the first time before the apex court. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a legal ground contained merely in written pleadings, if not specifically argued and pressed before the lower courts, cannot be entertained in further appeal.
- Can a party raise a legal ground in the appellate court that was pleaded in written objections but never argued before the lower courts?
- Whether an appeal before the Social Security Court is incompetent without a decision under section 57 of the Social Security Ordinance when the objection was not pressed below?
- Section 64, Social Security Ordinance
- Section 59, Social Security Ordinance
- Section 57, Social Security Ordinance
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Appeal in the Sind High Court under section 64 of the Social security Ordinance challenging the order of the Social Security Court, dated 21-6- 1978, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent's appeal under section 59 of the Social Security Ordinance was incompetent before the Social Security Court in the absence of "proper decision" under section 57 of the Ordinance.
It appears from the impugned judgment that no such ground was raised before the High Court and, therefore, we are not inclined to go into this question. This contention was also not raised before the Social Security Court as it finds no mention in the order of the said Court, dated 21-6- 1978. Learned counsel invited our attention to the objections filed before the Social Security Court which did contain objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that there existed no decision of the institution under section 57 of the Ordinance. Be that as it may, it is not sufficient to just mention a ground in the written objections filed in the Court but the point has also to be specifically asserted and argued before the Court. Precisely this was not done. The petitioner also did not complain in their memo of appeal before the High Court that the Tribunal had refused to go into this question although the point was argued before it.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were duly considered and the findings recorded in relation thereto are unexceptionable. We, therefore, find no substance in this petition which is dismissed accordingly.