' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration against the respondent by asserting that petitioner's Institution namely Sadiq Hospital is an establishment having less than 10 employees, therefore, provisions of Employees Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 are not applicable to the petitioner's establishment and is not liable to contribute under the said Act. The suit was contested by the respondents and specific plea in reply to para.4 of the plaint was taken up by the respondents that petitioner's establishment has been notified on 24-11- 1988 by the Federal Government, thus, the provisions of Employees Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 were made applicable under section 1(4)(ii) of the Act. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2-10-1995 decreed the suit. The same was assailed by the respondent through an appeal which was allowed vide judgment and decree, dated 28-11-2000. This appellate decree is being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Employees Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 whereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred with respect to the matters contained in the said Act. It is further added that under section 9 of the C.P.C., Civil Court being the Court of ultimate jurisdiction can examine the vires of the acts performed by the public functionaries in the sphere of their duties. It is lastly argued that since a disputed question of fact as to what were the number of employees employed by the petitioner's establishment requires recording of evidence, therefore, on this score as well the Civil Court had the jurisdiction. It is next argued that the respondent has not placed on record the Notification whereby the petitioner's establishment has been notified to be a contributor under the Act, therefore, without there being any evidence on record the petitioner cannot be termed as a notified establishment.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that although there is no special provision barring jurisdiction of the Civil Court but under sections 33, 34 and 35 of the Act, remedies/ forums are provided to cater the questions involved in the instant case, therefore, without availing those remedies petitioner's suit was not maintainable. It is thus, contended that by providing forums and remedies, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred although not specifically but by implication. It is further added that mere publication of a notification in the official Gazette by the Federal Government is a sufficient notice to all concerned and without placing such notification on record in evidence the same can be taken judicial notice of by the Court. It is finally argued that for notifying an establishment under the Act to be a contributor, the number of employees is a factor not to be considered.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Although a scheme of remedies and forums for the redressal of grievances is provided in sections 33, 34 and 35 of the Act, but there is no provision barring jurisdiction of the Civil Court, therefore, I am unable to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that by implication jurisdiction of Civil Court having ultimate jurisdiction can be barred. Where a disputed question of fact is raised along with vires of actions of public functionaries, the same can be examined by the Civil Court under section 9 of the C.P.C. Therefore, the findings of the learned Appellate Court whereby it is held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction, is contrary to law and is, therefore, reversed.
6. Before going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate that relevant provisions of law i,e, section 1(4) of the Employees Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 is reproduced:- "(1) ......................................................................
(2)
(3) ,(4) It applies to every industry or establishment---
(i) wherein ten or more persons are employed by the employer, directly or through any Other person, whether on behalf of himself or any other person, or where so employed on any day during the preceding twelve months, and shall continue to apply to every such industry or establishment even if the number of persons employed therein is, at any time after this Act becomes applicable to it, reduced to less than ten; or
(ia) wherein less than ten persons are employed if such industry or establishment voluntarily applies for application of this Act and this Act shall apply to such industry or establishment from the date of submission of an application by such industry or establishment; or
(ii) which the Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf."
' For the purposes of application of the Act, the number of employees is only relevant under section 1(4)(i) of the Act but if an establishment is notified by the Federal Government- to be amenable to the said Act, then the number of employees becomes irrelevant. In the instant case, the petitioner's organization already stands notified by the Federal Government on 24-1-1988 by publication of a notification in the official Gazette which is a sufficient notice to all and can be taken judicial note, therefore, the question raised by the petitioner that number of employees in his establishment were less than 10 was of no consequence as his establishment already stands notified in accordance with law under clause (ii) of subsection (4) of section 1 of the Act. Resultantly, no declaration could have been issued in his favour. Resultantly, finding no merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.