' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---Mr. Qazi Faez Isa, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in Civil Petition No, 328-K of 2008 has submitted that the impugned judgment dated 25-4-2008 passed by the learned Sindh High Court, whereby the petitioner has been directed to get its employees registered with the Sindh Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, is defective as, inter alia, it does not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a charitable organization and rendering exemplary services in the educational sector by providing free education, etc. To the lower income group of Pakistani citizens. Learned Advocate Supreme Court has also relied upon Don Bosco High School, Empress Road, Lahore v. Director Social Security and 2 others (2005 PLC 110) for the proposition that even otherwise schools have been held not to come within the definition of the term "Establishment" as per section 2(11) of the Ordinance.
2. On the other hand, Mr. S.A. Sarwana learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 3, respectively in both cases has fully supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the definition of the term "Establishment" occurring in section 2(11) of the Ordinance, 1965, is sufficiently wide to cover Schools though run by charitable organizations because the word "otherwise" appearing at the end of the section is not to be read exudes generis is held by this Court in Don Basco High School v. Assistant Director, EOBI and others (PLD 1989 SC 128). According to him, though the cited case was in relation to Employees Old Age Benefits Act, the provisions thereof are in pari material to that of the Ordinance as both are benevolent pieces of legislation designed to provide relief to the low income group employees. Further, learned Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that in the case of schools, this Court in C.As. Nos. 1550 to 1557 of 2000, and CAs Nos. 2611, 2612 and 2614 of 2001, has remanded the matters to the Social Security Institution since a factual inquiry was involved as regards the contention that said schools were providing adequate pecuniary and other benefits to its employees.
3. We have heard both the learned counsel. In our opinion, none of the judgments placed before us address the issue whether in view of the charitable nature of any organization, the provisions of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, would apply. Hence, we would grant leave to appeal to consider this important issue.