1. ' Being aggrieved with the Notification issued by Provincial Government of Sindh notifying the petitioner's Mill to be covered under Social Security Ordinance, 1965 and thereby demand of social security contribution of their employees by institution, this petition has been filed for seeking declaration that contribution may not be taken from the Mill till infrastructure of the benefit to be provided by the Sindh Employee's Social Security Institution is established at the Mill.
2. ' According to petitioner as the medical facilities to be provided to the employees of petitioner by Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution is at a distance of 65 Kms. From the Mill, therefore, it would not be possible for the employees practically to avail those facilities. It is further stated by him that the petitioner's Mill at his own is providing medical facilities at hospital and in their own dispensary with qualified doctors and paramedical staff round the clock. Beside the medical facilities provided to the worker medical allowance at the rate of 23% of the pay and Rs,1,200 maternity allowance per maternity is paid to the workers with further facility of operation fund of Rs,4,00,000, Mill ambulance is also available to them in case of emergency beside that in case of accident they have insurance covering. C.B.A. Union from time to time also enter into agreements with the Mill's authorities for better facilities to be granted to the employees. The medical facilities provided to the employees are much higher than the total monthly contribution payable by the petitioner to the Institution for the covered employees. Petitioner states that their employees are not prepared to avail the medical facilities to be granted by the Social Security, which are at the distance of about 65 Kms. Away from the Mill and are satisfied with the medical facilities being provided by the Mill. C.B.A. Union was also not satisfied with the issuance of impugned notification therefore, they had filed Suit bearing No,17 of 1998, that suit was decreed on 28-8-2000, which till now has not been challenged.
3. ' We have gone through the order, dated 28-2-2000 in Suit No,17 of 1998. Although suit was decreed but. With no finding as to the impugned notification. It was an ex parte decree and was disposed of with the observations that:-- "As nothing has come on record against the contentions of plaintiff, I have no hesitation to hold in the light of arguments advanced by the counsel of plaintiff and authority cited at bar that suit of plaintiff is genuine and correct. I, therefore, decree the suit of plaintiff as prayed. However, there is no order as to costs."
4. ' Referring two orders of this Court dated 3-6-2005 and 25-9-2007 whereby respondents Nos.1 and 2 were directed to examine the facility available at the petitioner's establishment, it is stated by learned counsel that no such report has been filed in accordance to these orders, but anyhow in parawise comments it is stated by respondents that there is Civil Hospital and private dispensaries and doctors at Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan, which is situated at a distance of about 20 Kms.
5. From Deh Deenpur, and is providing medical facilities to Messsrs Fauji Sugar Mills but the petitioner is not cooperating with the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution and is creating great hurdle for the Institution to implement the scheme to be availed by the employees of the petitioner's mill.
6. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although notification was issued on 12-1-1998 but till it is gazetted it cannot be practically implemented therefore, the notice of demand dated 2- 2-1998 was premature and was not maintainable as the notification was published in Gazette on 22-2-1998. Even if, it is taken for granted that the notification was published in Gazette on 22-2-1998 the petitioner cannot escape from the liability to pay the contribution on this technical ground.
7. After notification and publication of the same in Gazette he is under statutory obligation to pay the contribution for providing facilities to its employees through Institution. Even otherwise, notification of 12-1-1998 published on 22-2-1998 has not been challenged in the petition to be declared illegal or ultra vires. The only question raised by the petitioner is that employees because of distance in between the Mill and the place where Institution will provide medical facilities to them is so far that his employees cannot avail those facilities, but during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that he is prepared to pay contribution to the Institution if facilities are provided to its employees. With this statement of learned counsel for petitioner matter comes to an end.
8. ' The scheme of Social Security is a beneficial and remedial legislation to provide the medical facilities to the employees of working class. So once a notification is issued under subsection (3) of section 1 of Sindh Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 by Government of Sindh notifying any Industry to which the Ordinance is to apply then the obligation of the employer spelt out in section 20(1) of the Ordinance, 1965 and it will come into play, and it would be incumbent upon the employer to pay necessary contribution to the Institution with the proper record of the same. These obligations are not dependent on any action to be taken or initiated on the part of the Institution.
9. Our view is fortified by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution v. Messrs Spencer and Company (Pak) Limited 1998 SCM R 440 that:-- "The factum that the employees concerned were unable to receive the benefit under the Ordinance for want of registration of employees with the appellant in terms of the Ordinance would not, in any way, affect the liability of the Establishment to contribute the social security contribution in terms of the Ordinance and the rules framed thereunder as it cannot take benefit of its own wrong.
10. ' The benefit can be availed of by the. Employees who are registered with the appellant by their employer in terms of the Ordinance and not otherwise, but non-registration of the employees with the appellant would not absolve the employer concerned if his Establishment is notified under the Ordinance from his liability to contribute social security contribution."
11. ' With these observations and in view of the admission of the petitioner, petition stands dismissed.
12. Petitioner is directed to get their Institution registered with respondent No,1 for implementation of the D scheme for their employees within a period of one month from the date of this order.