' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALT, J---The complaint under section 57 of the Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 challenging respondent's demand of Rs,27,78,456 from the appellant was decided by the Director General (Headquarters) Punjab Social Security Institution, Lahore through order dated 9-4-2004. Aggrieved of a part of this order, the appellant instituted an appeal before the learned Social Security Court under section 59 of the Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965.
The learned Social Security Court, Lahore through the impugned order dated 26-5-2004 holding the appellant's complaint before the Institution as barred by time adjudged the appellant's appeal to be unmaintainable and barred. Order dated 26-5-2004 has been assailed in the present appeal by the appellant.
2. Examination of the impugned order dated 26-5-2004 reveals that the learned Judge Social Security Court treated the notice dated 18-1-2002 as the final notice of demand giving rise to the difference between the parties. And as such reckoning the period of limitation from 18-1-2002 held the complaint to be beyond time and the appeal unmaintainable.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the record of the case was examined. The question involved herein is as to whether notice dated 18-1-2002 was a final notice or not to commence the period of limitation for filing the complaint. Bare examination of the said notice is adequate to show that notice dated 18-1-2002 cannot be treated as the final notice. Second para of the said notice reads that: "You are, accordingly, requested to please make the payment of less paid amount of S.S. Contribution of Rs,27,78,456 for the period 7/96 to 12/2000 within a week of receipt of this letter positively, if it has already not been paid by you. In addition to this, you are also requested to make available the record of salary/wages along with other ancillary Heads, which is yet to be checked."
4. The above reproduced para. Shows that on demand of the purported less paid amount of Social Security Contribution of Rs,27,7S,456, the notice continued to direct the appellant to make available the record of salary/wages along with other ancillary. Heads, which was yet to be checked. The additional rider in the notice offered the clue to the tangled question. It negated the claim of the respondents as to the finality of notice dated 18-1-2002. The notifying Additional Director (Insp) demanded the record which had not been checked and required scrutiny to arrive at a final figure.
It amounted to an admission that the notified amount of Rs,27,78,456 was not the amount due. The notice dated 18-1-2002 therefore could not have been treated as the final notice to commence the period of limitation for the purposes of the complaint.
5. The above observation finds further support from the proceedings of the complaint wherein re- checking of the record was ordered. And upon re-checking, the demand was revised by the respondent institution from Rs,27,78,456 to Rs,25,04,717. This revised demand was also found by the Director General (Headquarters) to be incorrect and unjust as per order dated 9-4-2004 and the Institution was again directed to re-work the amount due although part claims of the Institution under certain Accounts were upheld.
6. Dissatisfied from the claims upheld in order dated 9-4-2004, the appellant filed yet another appeal before the Social Security Court. The learned Social Security Court on this appeal, took suo motu cognizance of the question of limitation and holding appellant's complaint to be beyond time, dismissed its appeal as well.
7. The learned Social Security Court, in the opinion of this Court, should have addressed itself as to the nature of notice dated 18-1-2002 in the perspective above re-counted. The learned Presiding Officer appears not to have applied his judicial mind to the test of the notice dated 18-1-2002 and also to the facts above recorded. In the opinion of this Court, the question of limitation in the filing of complaint has not been decided in accordance with the provisions of law.
8. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 26-5-2004 passed by the learned Judge, Social Security Court, Punjab, Lahore is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Judge Social security Court for rehearing of the appeal which shall be deemed to be pending. The parties shall appear before the learned Judge, Social Security Court, Punjab, Lahore on 15-11-2005.
9. Appeal accepted in above terms.