1. ' MS. RUKHSANA AHMAD, J.--- This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 64 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance') against the impugned Order No,3/2006, dated 22-8-2009, passed by the Presiding Officer/Sindh Labour Court No,1, Karachi. The facts in a nutshell as narrated by the appellant are as under:--- ' That the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and is regularly paying contribution to the respondents' institution for all the persons who fall within the definition of employees as defined in section 2(8)(f) of the Ordinance. The respondent No,2 raised demand for payment of Rs,13,73,056.42 alleged to be payable by the appellants towards the Social Security Contribution in ' respect of the appellant's employees without checking the record of the appellants.
(2) That since the said demand of the respondent No,2 was patently illegal and without any justification therefore the appellants requested the respondent No,2 that a joint meeting may be held between the parties so that the demand raised by him could be resolved after checking of the record of the appellants. In this connection the respondent No,2 vide letter dated 17-5-2004 constituted; a Committee of Social Security Officers for negotiating and checking the record of the appellants. In response thereof to the proposal of the appellants the respondent No,2 vide his letter dated 17-5-2004 constituted team of Social Security Officials for negotiation with the appellants on the demand made by the respondent No,2. The record of the appellant was examined in detail by the respondent and on the basis thereof with the consent of both the parties, it was mutually decided that the appellants would be liable to pay contribution for the period November, 2002 to June, 2003 amounting to Rs,2,42,000.00 and for the period June, 2003 to June, 2004 Rs,4,20,425.00 including the increased amount. Resultantly the above mentioned amount determined and agreed by the SESSI team was accordingly paid to the institution with its full and final satisfaction and the same was confirmed by the respondent No,2 in their letter dated 18-8-2004.
2. ' It is the contention of the appellant that without any justification the respondent No,2, vide their letter dated 18-8-2004 demanded from the appellants another sum of Rs,302,022,00 in the shape of penalty on the amount already paid to the institution with its full and final satisfaction on receipt of this letter the appellants filed a Complaint being No,29 of 2004 before the respondent No,1 against the illegal demand made by the respondent No,2, the complaint was dismissed vide order dated 16-4-2005 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Thereafter an appeal under section 59 of the Ordinance, before the Social Security Court No,1 was filed and after hearing both the parties the Order dated 16-4-2005 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to decide afresh after giving proper opportunity to the appellants to submit their arguments. But unfortunately after hearing the arguments of the appellants the respondent No,1 again dismissed the said complaint vide his order dated 11-2-2006 holding therein that the appellants are liable to pay the penalty/increased amount as per demand of the respondent No,2. Against the order dated 11-2-2006 the appellants filed appeal under section 59 of the Ordinance, before the Social Security Court No,1 in which the respondents filed parawise comments/written reply. The learned Social Security Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the appellants' appeal under section 59 of the Ordinance vide its order dated 22-8-2009.
3. ' It is the contention of the appellants' Advocate that the learned Social Security Court has failed to appreciate the fact that admittedly though the appellants paid entire required amount within time of Social Security Contribution after entering negotiation and with the consent of the respondent No, 1 therefore, there was no justification for respondents to impose penalty/increased amount upon the appellants. He further contended that the learned Social Security Court has failed to consider that the respondent did not raise any demand and/or imposed any penalty separately at the time when the amount of contribution was paid, therefore, after receipt/acceptance of the above mentioned amount including increase amount, the act of the respondent to impose penalty/ increased amount is unjustified and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellants has finally prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned Order and declare that the entire action of the respondents is illegal, bad in law, without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law as laid down in 1981 PLC 79, 1980 PLC 1245, 1983 PLC 1g2, 2000 PLC 26, PLD 1991 SC 308 and 1991 SCM R 2361. The learned counsel admitted to the fact that the appellant had paid arrears of contribution of Rs,2,42,000 on 26-6-2004 for the period from November, 2002 to June, 2003 and Rs,4,20,425 on 13-8-2004 for the period from July, 2003 to June, 2004 late beyond the prescribed time limit for which the increase under section 23(1) of the Ordinance, is leviable which is mandatory under the law. He further contended that the respondent No,2 by its letter dated 7-8- 2004 demanded increase of Rs,1,21,000 for late payment of contribution of Rs,2,42,000 on 26-6-2001 for the period from November, 2002 to June, 2003 and by letter dated 18-8-2004 also demanded increase of Rs,1,81,022 for late payment of contribution of Rs,4,20,425 on 13-8-2001 for the period from July, 2003 to June, 2004 and in the last by letter dated 16-9-2004 demanded Rs,3,02,022 towards increase for the period from November, 2002 to June, 2004. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that it is the statutory liability of the appellant to pay correct contribution in accordance with law and failure to pay the same within prescribed time limit the appellant would be liable to pay increased amount under section 23(1) of the Ordinance, which is mandatory therefore there was failure of the appellant in paying the due contribution within time limit for the period from November, 2002 to June, 2004. After perusing the documents placed on record by the respondent Advocate and hearing the arguments placed by both the Advocates the honourable Court has concluded that the impugned order has been correctly passed against the appellants and this miscellaneous appeal filed under section 64 of the Ordinance, 1965 merits no consideration and is dismissed with no orders as to costs.