' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- Factual background giving rise to this petition is that petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of various health care products. Petitioner has factories (one at Wah and the other at Karachi) and is therefore, amenable to the provisions of the Companies' Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1968). The petitioner company had been regularly paying 5% of its profits to the Fund established under the provisions of the Act of 1968. The relevant period in time is 2002, 2003 and 2004. At that time definition of worker contained in section 2(f) of the Act of 1968 had an essential element that the wages of the employees must not exceed Rs,5,000 per month. By 2003, by virtue of increases in salaries, employees of the petitioner company had reached a stage that all of its employees had ways in excess of Rs,5,000 per month and therefore it was in a situation where there was no worker (as defined in the Act of 1968) in employment of the company, However on or about March 3, 2004 Company paid an amount of Rs,12,260,000 to the Workers' Welfare Fund being entire amount of allocation required to be made by the company to the Fund established under the Act of 1968 in respect of the year which ended on December 31st, 2003. Having realized that since it had no worker, as defined in the Act of 1968 in its employment its Legal Advisor wrote a letter to the Section Officer, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis on July 17, 2005 informing the government that the amount had been inadvertently paid and the government was requested to refund the amount to the petitioner as well as declare that Act of 1968 was not applicable to the petitioner company. This letter was duly replied by the Section Officer vide letter dated 10-2-2005 and stand taken by the Section Officer was that the Act of 1968 is still applicable to the petitioner company, notwithstanding the fact that there was no worker, as defined in the Act of 1973, in .e employment of the petitioner in 2003 and 2004. It may be added that in 2005 wages/salary limit was raised through an amendment and through subsequent amendment the entire complexion of definition was changed. The controversy is therefore confined to years 2003 and 2004 as with effect from 2005 the company has workers in its employment and it has continued to pay in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2008. This Constitution Petition has been filed with the following prayers (material ones):--- "(1) That this honourable Court may kindly pass judgment and declare that the provisions of WPPF are inapplicable upon the petitioner Company.
(2) That it may further be declared that the petitioner's employees are drawing wages exceeding Rs,5,000 per month, hence they do not come within the ambit and scope of the definition of "worker" as defined under section 2(f) of WPPF consequently, the petitioner is not bound to establish any "Fund" or to transfer any "Fund" or to transfer any "5% profit" to such Fund under WPPF as the law itself is not applicable upon the petitioner in all respects. "
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Clause 4(d) of the Schedule of the Act of 1968 and contended that the employer is only required to transfer the amount "left out of annual allocation after the units have been so allocated". He submitted that since no units could be allocated in 2003 and 2004 because there was no worker as defined in the Act of 1968 in the employment of the company at the relevant time there could not be any question of allocating any units to any worker and consequently there could not be any question of any amount required to be transferred to the Workers' Welfare Fund. Learned counsel referred to section 4 of the Act of 1968 and contended that if there is no worker in the employment of the company no Board of Trustees could be constituted and therefore Act is rendered inapplicable.
3. Choudhry Muhammad Ashraf Khan learned counsel for respondent No, 2, supported arguments of Mr. Qamaruddin Hassan learned counsel for the petitioner and referred to preamble of the Act as well as Rule 4(e) of the Companies' Profits (Worker's Participation) Rules, 1971.
4. Mr. Jawad A. Sarwana, who appeared as amicus curiae submitted that there are four elements which require consideration in respect of the provisions of the Act of 1968 and its applicability. The first question was regarding applicability of the Act and learned counsel referred to Clause (1) of the scheme as given in the Schedule of the Act and contended that the Act of 1968 is applicable.
According to learned counsel the second element was regarding establishment of fund and in this connection he referred to section 3 and submitted that this section is applicable regardless of whatever is stated in the definition of the worker. Learned counsel referred to section 4(3) and Rule 3(3) to contend that trustees nominated in 2002 continued as trustees in 2004. Learned counsel in this regard also referred to section 20(13)(d) of the I.R.0, 2002 and contended that right to nominate trustees on the Board of Trustees is available to the Collective Bargaining Agent irrespective whether there is any worker, as defined in the Act of 1968 in the employment of company or not.
Learned counsel submitted that section 20(13)(d) of I.R.O., 2002 would prevail over the provisions contained in Rule 3(3) and section 4(3) of the Act of 1968. Learned counsel referred to Annexure "3" with the rules which is the form and submitted that a perusal of the form clearly indicates that the entire amount could go to the government. Learned counsel referred to Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd.
And another v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution and another PLD 1977 SC 197 to contend that Act of 1968 being welfare legislation must be liberally construed. Learned counsel also referred to Muhammad Siddique v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another PLD 1979 Kar. 560 and Messrs Hafiz Textile Mills, Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 1986 M LD 206 to contend that legislative intent must be looked at while interpreting a statute.
5. Mr. Ashiq Raza, learned D.A.-G. Adopted arguments of Mr. Jawad Sarwana and referred to Messrs Mutual Funds Association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan and another 2010 PLC 306 to contend that Workers' Welfare Fund is for the benefit of all the workers and even if no worker is employed even then the Act of 1968 would be applicable.
6. Choudhry Muhammad Ashraf Khan while exercising right of reply pointed out Form 3 and the last column thereof.
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and have also gone through the case law cited at the bar.
8. The Companies' Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968 received assent of the President of Pakistan, after having been passed by the National Assembly (at that time under the Constitution of 1962 Legislature was unicameral) on July 4, 1968 was published in the Gazette of Pakistan on July 5, 1968. Preamble of the Act of 1968 states that it was for providing "for participation of workers in the profits of companies". Worker was defined in section 2(f) in the following words:-- Section 2(f).-
(f) "worker" in relation to a company means employee of the company whose average monthly emoluments computed in the manner set forth in scheme do not exceed one thousand rupees per month and who has been in the employment of company for a period of not less than six months."
9. Section 3 provides for establishment of Workers' Participation Fund and payment by the employer to the fund annually at the close of its accounting year. A sum equivalent to 2-1/2% of its profit during the year was originally mandated. In early seventies the figure 2-1/2% was increased to 4% and then to 5% where it stands today. Section 4 made provisions in respect of management of the fund and section 5 prescribes penalties if the company fails to comply with the provisions of the Act. Then there was a schedule wherein provision was made for compliance with the provisions of section 3 and for distribution of benefits and other ancillary matters.
10. Definition of worker as given above continued till 2006 except from time to time limit of wages of 1,000 per month was increased. First 'radical departure was made by amendment introduced through the Finance Act, 2006 and it completely substituted the definition of worker. New definition was in the following words:---
(1) in section 2 for Clause (f), the following shall be substituted namely:--
(f) "worker" in relation to a company, means an employee of the company who falls within the definition of a worker as defined in Clause (xxx) of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (XCI of 2002) and has been in the employment of the company for a period of not less than six months."
(2) Workers drawing average monthly wages exceeding five thousand rupees but not exceeding seven thousand five hundred rupees.
(3) Workers drawing average monthly wages exceeding seven thousand five hundred but not exceeding ten thousand rupees." and
(ii) in Clause (d), for the words "Rupees six thousand", the words, brackets, letters and figures the amount of three times of the minimum wages for unskilled workers as given in the schedule of Minimum Wages for Unskilled Workers Ordinance, 1969 (W.P. Ord. XX of 1969)" shall be substituted.
11. By Finance Act 2007 further changes were brought in the definition and the changes were as under:---
(I) in section 2 for Clause (f), the following shall be substituted namely:
(t) "worker" in relation to a company, means an employee of the company including employed by or through the contractors who falls within the definition of a worker as defined in Clause (xxx) of Section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (XCI of 2002) and has been working for or in the company for a period of not less than six months.";
12. A look at the definition as it evolved over the years indicates that till 2006 the definition had three ingredients; firstly employment in the company, secondly minimum period of six months of employment during the year; and thirdly wage limit which initially was Rs,1,000 per month and was 5000 per month at the time of amendment by Finance Act 2006. Thereafter in the scheme categories of workers were prescribed depending upon their wages and shares were prescribed.
New definition introduced by Act of 2006 made a radical departure. The definition again had three ingredients; viz. First employment in the company; second the employment for a period of not less than six months and thirdly the person should a workman as defined in section 2(xxx) of the I.R.O., 2002. Significant point is that wage as a marker in the definition was taken out. However, in the category maximum wages of Rs,10,000 was stated. When it was again amended by Finance Act, 2007, four significant changes were brought about firstly besides the persons who were employees of the company persons employed by or through the contract were also included in the definition of worker. Thus, by legal fiction even if a person is not an employee of the company but is employed by a contractor of the company for the purpose of Act of 1968 such person would be treated as worker of a company. Secondly the same thing was reiterated by adding "working for or in the company". Thirdly, for the purpose of entitlement whereas previously there had always been a maximum limit, now maximum wage limit was removed.
13. As narrated above, the facts in respect of the petitioner's company are that in 2003 when the wage limit was Rs,5,000, as given in the definition, company did not have any employee in its establishment whose wages fell within the wage limit as prescribed in the definition at that time.
This position remained effective for two years 2003 and 2004. Thereafter since the definition was changed the company again came to the position where it had in its employment persons falling within the definition as contained in the Act of 1968.
14. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since in 2003 to 2004 the company did not have any worker in its employment the Act of 1968 is not applicable to it. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel one may refer to Clause (1) of the Schedule given with the Act of 1968 which is reproduced as under:--- "Clause (1) of the Schedule.--- (1) Scope of the scheme. The scheme applies to all companies engaged in industrial undertakings which satisfy any one of the following conditions, and to such other companies as the Federal Government by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf, namely:- "(i) The number of workers employed by the company at time during a year is 50 or more.
(ii) The paid up capital of the company as on the last day of its accounting years is Rs,5 Million or more.
(iii) The value of the fixed assets of the company (at cost) as on the last day of the accounting year is Rs,20 Million or more."
15. A bare reading of the schedule indicates that three conditions for the applicability have been laid down. The Act is applicable only to companies engaged in industrial undertaking. The company must satisfy one of the three conditions. Thus, it is not a requirement of law that all the three conditions be simultaneously met by the company in question. Even if one of the condition is met, the Act of 1968 becomes applicable. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that Clause (ii) (paid up capital of Rupees 5 Million or more) and clause (iii) (fixed assets of Rupees 20 Million or more) are fully applicable to the company. However, his contention was that since there is no worker in the company and therefore no benefit can be given to any one and therefore Act of 1968 is not applicable to the petitioner's company. The contention must be repelled for two reasons firstly the Clause (1) as quoted above itself specifies that one of the three conditions must be met.
Secondly, in the preamble as quoted above, it is stated that the purpose is "to provide for participation of workers in the profits of companies". Absence of definite article "the" bare word "companies" is not without significance. Scheme of the Act is that benefit of profit/share is given to employees subject to a maximum amount prescribed by law and any employee's share beyond that maximum amount is required to be deposited in the Workers' Welfare Fund and Workers'
Welfare Fund is not for the benefit of a particular company but is benefit of workers across the country. Similar submission was made in the case of Mutual Funds Association of Pakistan's case (supra) and Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Shahid Anwar Bajwa, J) was a member held as under:--- "(15) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not employ any worker and therefore provisions of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance of 1971 are not applicable to the petitioner. In this regard the petitioner referred to the preamble of the Ordinance of 1971. Preamble reads as under:--- "Whereas it is expedient to provide for the establishment of a Workers' Welfare Fund, for providing residential accommodation and other facilities for workers and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.")
(16) For the purpose of deciding contention of the learned counsel, reference may also be made to section 4(1) of the Ordinance. It is in the following words: "4. Mode of payment by and recovery from industrial establishments.-- (1) Every industrial establishment, the total income of which is in any year of account commencing on or after the date specified by the Federal Government in the official Gazette in this behalf is not less than five Lakh of Rupees shall pay to the Fund in respect of that year a sum equal to two per cent of its total income...."
(17) Above indicates that under section 4(1) every industrial establishment whose total income is not less than 500,000 Rupees is required to pay 2% of its total income to the fund. This provision may be juxtaposed with the provisions contained in the Employees' Old Age Benefit Act, 1976 wherein it is specifically provided that the Act is only applicable to the establishments where 5 persons are employed. Similarly in the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 it is specified that the Ordinance does not apply to establishments where less than 20 workers are employed. Similarly in the Factories Act, 1934, it is specified that at least 5 workers be employed. There is no such condition in section 4(1) of the Ordinance of 1971. Moreover, a reading of the preamble indicates that the Legislature decided to establish a Workers' Welfare Fund for providing residential and other facilities for workers. It is not stated that for workers of that particular establishment. It is also no one's case that separate accounts for benefit of workers is maintained and the amount paid to the Workers' Welfare Fund by, an establishment is utilized only for the benefit of workers of that establishment from which a particular amount is collected.
Therefore purpose of this Ordinance appears to be to collect funds from all industrial establishments (as defined at a given time) and then to utilize them for benefit of workers employed whereever they may be. Therefore, contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner company does not employ a worker and therefore, the Ordinance of 1971 cannot be made applicable to it is without any force."
16. We therefore hold that the Act of 1968 was applicable to the petitioner's company even in 2003 and 2004 when the petitioner's company did not have any person in its employment falling within the definition of 'worker' as contained in section 2(f) of the Act of 1968 as that subsection stood at that time.
17. Having come to the above conclusion, what is next to be seen is whether a company to which the Act is applicable and which company has no worker at a given time in its employment is required to make contribution (allocation as the Act of 1968 calls it) to the Workers' Participation Fund. Answer to this question is given by section 3 of the Act of 1968. Said section is as follows:---
3. Establishment of Fund.--- (1) Every company to which the scheme applies shall---
(a) establish a Workers' Participation Fund in accordance with the scheme as soon as the accounts for the year in which the scheme becomes applicable to it are finalized, but not later than nine months after the close of that year;
(b) subject to adjustments, if any, pay every year to the Fund not later than nine months after the close of that year, five per cent of its profits during such year, which shall, where the accounts have been audited by an auditor appointed under section 23B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969), be assessed on the basis of such audit; and"
18. Reading of above indicates that obligation to establish the fund and then pay 5% of profit to the Fund is obligation of every company to which the scheme applies. Thus if the scheme applies to a company, irrespective of any other fact or it is required to pay 5% of its profits to the fund. It may be noticed that obligation to pay to the fund accrues if the scheme applies to the company, There is nothing said in section 3 that every company to which the scheme applies and which has so many workers in its employment. We have already held above by referring to clause (1) of the scheme that since the company meets two of three alternate (and not concurrent) conditions laid down, the Act would be applicable to the company and the fact that in 2003 and 2004 the company had no worker in its employment as per definition of worker at that time is of no consequences in respect of creation of, obligation on IF part of the company.
19. Crux of arguments of Mr. Qamaruddin Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner was centered around interpretation of para 4(d) of the scheme. The said para reads as under:- "4(d) of the Schedule.--- (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this scheme, no worker shall, in any one year, be entitled out of the annual allocation to units exceeding rupees six thousand in value in so far as such allocation is relatable to clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 3. Any amount left out of the annual allocation after the units have been so allocated shall be transferred to the Fund constituted under section 3 of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 (XXXVI of 1971).
No part of such amount shall be deemed to be included in the net asset value of the Fund established under this Act and no individual worker shall have any lien on this amount by virtue of holding any units."
Emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner was on the words "any amount left out of annual allocation after the units have been so allocated". What the learned counsel contended was that amount can be left out only after units have been allocated and if units are not allocated there would be no amount left out and therefore there is no obligation on part of the company to transfer any amount to Workers' Welfare Fund. The contention must be repelled. It is accepted principle of statutory interpretation that legislation must be construed as a whole and it is not available to any person or any Court to pick out a part of the legislation and say, rest be damned, this is what this part means. The whole scheme of the Act is that employer is required to contribute to the fund. The law has designed such a scheme that part of the contribution is for the benefit of workers in that establishment and part of the fund is for benefit of workers in general and not necessarily in the company in question. Obviously if there is no worker in the company one cannot interpret para. 4(d) to say workers across the country are also disentitled to their share of benefits just because part of the 5% cannot be distributed amongst workers of the company due to statutory provisions.
Therefore words 'left out' cannot be given a meaning which could negate the rests of the provisions of the statute. Words "left out" means whatever is surplus. It may be 0% and it may be 100%.
Therefore, whatever is surplus which cannot be distributed amongst the workers out of allocation must necessarily be deposited in the Workers' Welfare Fund.
20. For the purpose of management of the Fund, Choudhry Muhammad Ashraf, referred to Section 4 of the Act of 1968, Rule 3 of the Companies' Profits (Workers Participation) Rules, 1973, Rule 4(a) thereof. The same are reproduced as under:- "4. Management of the Fund.--- (1) As soon as may be but not later than two months, after the establishment by a company of a Fund under section 3, there shall be constituted a Board of Trustees consisting of the following trustees, namely:---
(a) two persons elected by the workers of the company from amongst themselves; and
(b) two persons nominated by the management of the company of whom at least one shall be a person from the accounts branch of the company.
(2) The persons holding office as trustees shall elect for one year a person to be the Chairman of the Board alternately from amongst the trustees elected under clause (a) of subsection (1) and those nominated under clause (b) of that subsection, the first Chairman being from amongst the latter.
(3) A trustee shall, unless be sooner ceases to represent the interest he was elected or nominated to represent, hold office for such term and on such conditions as may be prescribed by rules."
' Rule 3. Establishment of Board of Trustees.--- "(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of section 4, a trustee shall hold office for two years unless he earlier resigns or, in the case of a trustee nominated by the company, his nomination is withdrawn by the company."
' Rule 4-A. Duties of the Secretary to the Fund.--- It shall be the duty of the Secretary to the Fund---
(e) to transfer any amount, left out of the annual allocation, to the Fund constituted under section 3 of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 (XXXV of 1971), within fifteen days after the annual allocation as required under paragraph 4(d) of the Schedule to the Act, and furnish to the Federal Government a Photostat copy of the treasury challan showing the transfer of the said amount."
21. Contention of Choudhry Muhammad Ashraf Khan was that since it is required that 2 of the 4 Members of the Board of Trustees be elected by the workers of the company from amongst themselves and since there was no worker there could not be Trustees representing workers and therefore in the absence of Trustees representing workers all Trustees would become non est and since there is no Trust therefore there cannot be any obligation to transfer the funds because the funds are to be transferred by the Trustees.
22. In our view the argument does not take into consideration all the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is true that under section 4 there are to be 4 Trustees two to be nominated by management of the company and 2 to be elected by workers or nominated by the Collective Bargaining Agent. Admittedly for the material years there was no worker as defined in the Act of 1968 in the employment of the company and therefore, obviously none could be elected or nominated to represent the workers. Under subsection (2) of section 3 one of the Trustees is to be the Chairman alternately from amongst the representative of employer and representative of workers. Therefore at least for one or two years the Board of Trustees could have a Chairman also.
Under subsection (4) of section 3 the Chairman has a casting vote. Therefore it cannot be said that the Trustees becomes non-functional. It is not provided that if there is a vacancy, the trust must go in limbo. For example if there are no representatives nominated by the C.B.A, if one takes argument of learned counsel to down (or up) its logical steps and C.B.A., does not nominate, either out of spite for the management or otherwise any representative on the Board of Trustees (and C.B.A.
Cannot be compelled because under the provisions as contained in section 5 of the Act penalty is only on the company and not for C.B.A. Which does not nominate or workers who. Do not elect).
Thus if arguments of Choudhry Muhammad Ashraf is accepted then there would be no Trust, no obligation to pay and therefore, no payment is required to be made to Workers' Welfare Fund.
Obviously such an interpretation cannot be said to be intention of the law.
23. Moreover it is also provided in the rules (Rule 3(4) that nominee of the company from its account branch shall act Secretary to the fund. Thereafter Rule 4(a)(e) provides that it is duty of the Secretary of the fund to transfer the amount. Therefore even if there is no nominee by the workers there is always a Secretary on whom the duty is cast by Rule 4(a)(e) to transfer the left out amount to the Workers' Welfare Fund. Thus a reading of all these provisions together show that even if trustees are not nominated by the C.B.A. Or not elected by the workers or cannot be nominated by the C.B.A. Or cannot be elected by the workers it is the obligation of the Secretary to transfer the requisite amount to the Workers' Welfare Fund.
24. Mr. Jawad A. Sarwana, referred to section 22(12)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
That section provides that C.B.A. Shall be entitled to "nominate representative of workman on the Board of Trustees of, inter alia Workers' Participation Fund." Mr. Sarwana's contention was that word worker used in section 22(12)(d) would have the same meaning as is given to it in definition of section 2(xxviii) of the I.R.O.
1969. We are unable to agree. Under the Act of 1968 C.B.A. Is to nominate workers representative from amongst workers "themselves" as defined in the Act of 1968. Therefore though the C.B.A. Is entitled to nominate the representative of workers but (at least as far as 2003 and 2004 were concerned) such workers must be workers for-the purpose of Act of 1968 and if they are not workers for the purpose of Act of 1968 it is not available to the C.B.A. To nominate such persons who though not workers for the purpose of Act of 1968 were workers for the purpose of I.R.O., 1969.
25. Mr. Sarwana referred to Kohinoor Chemical Company's case (supra) where it was held that a beneficial or remedial legislation is conceived as a means of ameliorating the lest of the working class, and as such, it would be in keeping with the accepted principle of interpretation, be construed as to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief, or else it would frustrate the legislative intent.
26. Muhammad Siddique's case (supra) was in respect of group insurance. It was laid down by a 'Division Bench of this Court as under:--- "There is wealth of authority for the proposition that a case not provided for in a statute is not to be dealt with merely because there seems no good reason why it should have been omitted, and the omission appears in consequence to have been unintentional (Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, Cassus Omissus in a statute is not be readily inferred and as stated in Crais on Statute Law, 6th Edn., P. 520: "As a general rule a Court of law is not authorised to supply a Cassus Omissus, or to alter the language of a statute for the purpose of supplying a meaning, if the language used in the statute is incapable of one, even though they may be of opinion that a mistake has been made in drawing the Act."
' The rule, however, is not an inflexible one for the primary and the most fundamental rule of construction, to which all other rules are subsidiary, is to ascertain and give effect to the real intention of the law-maker. Furthermore, the other main principles of interpretation, such as the mischief rule, the rule of beneficial construction, the presumption against ousting established jurisdictions, and the rule of harmonious construction and avoidance of repugnancy, have also to be taken into consideration, specially in cases of special types of legislation or provisions of a special statute."
27. The Act of 1968 is a piece of legislation with two constituencies in sight: workers of the company and workers of companies. The result of the above discussion is that as far as allocation is concerned, it is the obligation of the company to make payment to the fund and then it is obligation of the Secretary of the fund to transfer this amount to the Workers' Welfare Fund even when there are no workers.
28. Apart from the allocation to the fund interest is also paid in respect of period for which the company utilises the amount due to the fund i.e, from the first day of next succeeding accounting year to the date on which amount is actually transferred to the fund. There may also be some income earned by the funds between the date the amount was transferred and the date it is actually disbursed. In National Tanker Company (Pvt.) Ltd., and another v. Federal Government of Pakistan 2006 SCMR 1052 the honourable Supreme Court held that no part of the interest is to be deposited in the Workers' Welfare Fund and whole of it is to be distributed amongst the workers.
Difficulty arises in this case because there is no worker. The situation is that interest payment cannot be deposited in the Workers' Welfare Fund and it cannot be distributed amongst employee because there was no worker. However since no arguments in respect of the interest took place, and rightly so because the impugned letter dated 10-2-2005 does not refer to the interest and is therefore only in respect of allocation we leave this question for determination in an appropriate case.
29. Consequently this Constitutional Petition is dismissed in limine. Letter dated 10-2-2005 issued by the Section Officer, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis is held to have been issued in accordance with the law and the company is directed to transfer the amount of allocation in accordance with the law to the Workers' Welfare Fund. Listed application is disposed of.