CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.--- Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the Notice No,SSR/Con/6-23-1076-3698, dated 10-3- 2008 whereby respondent No,1 (Director Social Security) demanded a sum of Rs,12,39,798 under the caption "increase amount" as the principal amount of social security contribution was paid late.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that respondent No,1 had no authority to issue notice because such powers have been delegated to governing body as per section 3 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 and not to the Director Social Security; that respondent No,1 is not a court but it vide notice has purported itself to be a court illegally and unlawfully; that the original social security contributions were paid but after due dates which fact is admitted in the notice, therefore, no justification for increased amount up to 50% of the actual contributions; that the petitioner has suffered huge losses in its business and delayed payment of principal amounts was not willful; that the increase cannot .Be demanded mechanically rather prior to that proper opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner; that rule 6 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Contribution Rules, 1966 is ultra vires to the Ordinance ibid and Constitution, 1973. Learned counsel avers that the impugned notice is without any lawful authority, therefore, it be declared illegal, unlawful and void ab initio.
3. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 (Social Security Department) vehemently opposes this writ petition and fully supports the notice.
They argue that the matter pertains to social security contributions which is mandatory provision of the Ordinance ibid and under section 23 of the same, the arrears of contribution can be recovered as arrears of land revenue as per Land Revenue Act, 1967. They aver that the notice has been issued under section 18 of the Ordinance ibid by the Director to whom the powers have been delegated by the competent authority. They contend that the contents of writ petition clearly show that the petitioner admits delayed payment of contribution which is liable to penalty as per section 23 of the Ordinance ibid. Their main emphasis was on the point that since the matter is sub-judice before the competent authority, the writ petition being premature is not maintainable. They further point out that the Ordinance ibid provides even the right of appeal. They pray that the writ petition in hand be dismissed.
4. Arguments advanced from all corners have been heard and notice impugned as well as other documents placed on file also perused.
5. Paragraph 3 of the notice in question depicts that the amount mentioned in the notice is assessed one which may become final if the petitioner does not oppose the same but the petitioner instead of contesting the same before the competent authority has filed the instant writ petition. The proceedings thereat were stayed by this Court on 2-4-2008; therefore, no final decision could be made by the department till date.
6 . At its very beginning, the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 provides that a scheme has been introduced of Social Security for providing benefits to certain employees or their dependents in the event of sickness, maternity, employment, injury or death and for matters ancillary thereto. It further provides that the employers shall make contribution for the very purpose failing which the institution will be under obligation to issue notice to the employer which has been done by respondent No:1 /Director, as such, the notice impugned has been issued validly and lawfully by the Director/respondent No,1 on behalf of the institution.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged vires of the Ordinance which is a special law and meant only for the welfare of the employees as mentioned in sub-clause (3) of section (1) of the Ordinance. I have gone through the whole Ordinance but could not find any lacuna as agitated by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the contentions agitated by petitioner side regarding vires of the Ordinance are unfounded and baseless:
8. As per section 23 of the Ordinance, penalty up to 50% increase in the principal amount can be imposed in case of delayed payment of social security contribution. However, when the petitioner himself admits that the payment of contribution was made late, then, it has to prove that these were not based on mala fide or wilful default. If it succeeds to satisfy, then, the imposition of penalty could be reduced by the department appropriately.
9. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Director was not competent to issue notice is concerned, the other side has fully addressed this argument by saying that the powers vested with Commissioner under section 18 of the Ordinance were delegated to Vice- Commissioner who has further delegated the same to the Director, as such, the Director has exercised his powers in accordance with law and committed no illegality while issuing the notice impugned.
10. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the department has mechanically increased the amount of delayed contributions to 50% which is unlawful and illegal as under section 23 of the Ordinance, in case of non-payment of contribution till due date, the increase can be made upto 50% meaning thereby it may be 0.001% or 50% of the principal amount.
Suffice to say that it has unambiguously been mentioned in the notice that the amount claimed in the notice was based on assessm ent and if the petitioner would not approach the department, this would be deemed as final. Since no final decision in this regard has come by the department till date, presumption would be that the petitioner can challenge the amount given in the notice before the authority who issued the notice which will be considered and adjudicated upon by the institution/authority as provided under section 57 of the Ordinance. If the decision does not favour the petitioner, the petitioner can file a review petition under section 58 of the Ordinance for redressal of its grievance. As per section 59 of the Ordinance, the petitioner has further right to file appeal before the Social Security Court against decision of the institution under section 57 or on a review under section 58 of the Ordinance. Even if the petitioner fails, the appeal before the High Court lies subject to involvement of a substantial question of law, as provided under section 64 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. In the circumstances, since the matter is still pending before the department, the petitioner can agitate its contentions and get settled the issue thereat in accordance with law. Even if the petitioner fails, it can also avail remedies before higher forums as mentioned hereinbefore. It is settled law that proceedings at different forums regarding the same matter cannot run simultaneously. Moreover, when the matter is sub judice before the department or where the right of review, revision or appeal has been provided under the relevant statute, the writ petition, without availing such remedies, is not competent and liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
11. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition being premature is dismissed.