' RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J.--- This judgment is directed to dispose of Writ Petition No,622 of 2007.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited, petitioner herein, had come into existence under section 34 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re- organization) Act, 1996, on 31-12-1995. In the year 1998, Employees Old-Age Benefit Institution, respondent No,1 herein, sent a letter to the petitioner company to pay contribution pursuant to sections 9 and 9-B of the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, hereinafter referred as EOB Act. The said letter was followed by a number of meetings held between the parties. The above said letter was then followed by another letter dated 15-5-1998; then a reminder was sent on 1-6-1998 and another reminder was sent in July, 1998, which was responded by the petitioner on 21-9-1998, wherein it was claimed that EOB Act was not applicable to the petitioner company. As a result, many other letters were written by the respondent to the petitioner company; however, in June, 2002 respondent No,1, through its Assistant Director conducted survey at the office of the petitioner and after preparing a report, the petitioner company was registered in June, 2002. Pursuant to the same, a Certificate of Registration was also issued to the petitioner company. In June, 2002 respondent No,1 sent a letter to the petitioner, with a request to pay the contribution. In September, 2002 another letter was written to the petitioner company, to provide certain informations but the same was not responded. Thereafter, another assessment was conducted by respondent No,1 in December, 2002. Lastly, in December, 2002 respondent No,1 sent a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner. In February, 2003 Final Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner company, which was followed by certain other letters. In June, 2005 respondent No,1 sent a reminder notice to the petitioner company. The petitioner, however, instead of paying the amount, filed a petition under section 33 of the EOB Act, challenging its registration, which was decided against the petitioner by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 29-10-2005. The petitioner company thereafter filed appeal against the order of adjudicating authority under section 35 of EOB Act, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 1-7-2006 by the Appellate Authority. Pursuant to the same, respondent No,1 again sent demand notice to the petitioner, however, in March, 2007 the petitioner company filed present writ petition, with the prayer that the demand notice dated 24-2-2007, judgment of the adjudicating authority dated 29-10-2005 as well as the judgment of Appellate Authority dated 1-7-2006 be declared as illegal, without lawful authority and therefore, be set aside.
It was further prayed that the respondents be restrained from using any process to recover the payment in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner company is a statutory body and therefore, does not fall within the definition of an 'establishment' or 'industrial' concern; as such is not liable to pay Employees Old Age Benefit Insurance. It was further submitted that the respondents had no authority to order suo motu registration of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, order of registration was therefore, void ab initio having been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and therefore, the demand order issued by respondent No, 1 is also illegal. According to the learned counsel, the contribution amounts to tax, which could not be imposed and demanded. It was further contended that the amount had been determined unilaterally and the adopted mode of recovery as 'Arrears of Land Revenue' through coercive process, is also illegal and without lawful authority.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since 1998, the Management of respondent No,1, had been trying to persuade the petitioner company, to pay the contribution, but the petitioner company had been refusing the same. In this respect, the learned counsel gave history of the letters sent to the petitioner company, which is as under:--- "On 15-5-1998 respondent No,1 sent letter No,IDR/R&C/98; on 1-5-1998 reminder No,IDR/R&C/98- 8981 was sent on 18-7-1998 second reminder No,IDR/R&C/98-10604 was sent. On 21-9-1998 the petitioner responded to the letters of respondent No,1, vide letter No,15-20/98-SW claiming that the EOB Act is not applicable to the petitioner. Again, on 8-4-1999 letter No,IDR/R&C/99-701 was written by respondent No,1; on 21-4-1999 respondent No,1 sent reminder bearing No,IDR/R&C/99-825.
Thereafter, numerous reminders were sent to Petitioner Company, but to no avail. In December, 2000 another letter was sent to the petitioner company; again in June, 2002 an Assistant Director of respondent No,1, conducted a survey at the office of Petitioner Company. It was because of this non-responsive attitude of the petitioner, that respondent No,1 registered the petitioner company on 12-6-2002 and assigned Registration No,FAA-00951. Thereafter, Certificate of registration was also issued to the petitioner. On 15-6-2002 respondent No,1 again sent a letter requesting the petitioner company to pay the contribution. On September 6, 2002 another letter was written to the petitioner company, to provide certain informations. Thereafter, another assessment was conducted by respondent No,1 on December 7, 2002. On December 11, 2002 respondent No,1 sent a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner. On 7-1-2003 another letter was sent to the petitioner. On 27-2- 2003 respondent No,1 sent a final Show Cause Notice, which was followed by a reminder dated 13- 5-2003. On 13-6-2005 another assessment was made by the Assistant Director of respondent No,1 and then demand notice dated 13-6-2005 was sent to the petitioner. It was after the said demand that the petitioner company filed petition before the Adjudicating Authority challenging the registration."
Learned counsel for the respondents in view of the aforementioned facts submitted that the registration order was passed after innumerable letters and reminders. The petitioner company had been avoiding appearance and responding the demand of respondent No,1, since 1998. In 2005, the petition was filed wherein the registration was challenged and since then the petitioner had been avoiding appearance and prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner was condemned unheard. The learned counsel further submitted that EOB Act is beneficial legislation and it has to be construed liberally. The petitioner company was incorporated and registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. From the date of its incorporation, the company cannot be considered as a statutory body. Though, prior to its establishment, it was an authority controlled by the Federal Government, but after its establishment as a company, the same cannot be considered as a statutory body. It was further submitted that respondent No,1 had the authority to register the petitioner company, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner company was avoiding replying respondent No,1 and because of this respondent No,1 could order registration under the suo motu powers. The learned counsel also submitted that EOB Act is not a tax statute. It was further submitted that even if there are other schemes available for employees of Petitioner Company, the applicability of EOB Act cannot be precluded.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner company is a statutory body and EOB Act is not applicable to its employees. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner company is a statutory body is not correct. Section 34 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 provided that as soon as may be, after the commencement of this Act, the Federal Government shall establish a company to be known as the Pakistan Telecommunication Company, limited by shares and cause it to be incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Therefore, the petitioner company was established under the direction issued by the statute, but the company itself had not come into existence through a statute. As such, it cannot be considered as a statutory body. Similarly, the exclusion of an industry or establishment from EOB Act, can be determined only under section 47 of the EOB Act and the petitioner company does not fall in any provisions of section 47 ibid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsection (F) of section 47 ibid provides that the act shall not apply to the person, in service of statutory body. Elaborating this argument further, the learned counsel submitted that before becoming a company, the petitioner was an authority known as Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, being controlled by the Federal Government. The petitioner company had come into existence through an act; it was exempted from taxes and for the employees of the company, a trust was created. The trust maintains pension fund etc and since the Act provided that the same had overriding effect, therefore, the petitioner company is not to be considered as an ordinary company, rather for all practical purposes, it is an establishment. The learned counsel further submitted that since there is trust of the company, which provides pension etc, therefore, burdening the petitioner company for payment under EOB Act would amount to double taxation.
7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner company cannot be considered as a statutory body, simply on the basis of presumptions and whims. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner company has been incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and is limited by shares. As such, it cannot be considered as a statutory organization and it would not fall outside the ambit of EOB Act. The EOBI is not a tax, but its object is to afford employees and workers with a social safety net by offering them subsistence benefits such as old-age pension, old-age C grants, and disability and survivor benefits. Its purpose is to protect the indigent sections of Pakistan's employment class. As such, it cannot be said that the EOBI is a tax. The fact that other benefits are available for workers of the petitioner company, would not exclude the application of D EOB Act.
8. The alternate argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the registration made by respondent No, 1 was a unilateral act and therefore was illegal. This contention too is not correct.
The record shows that the petitioner company came into existence in the year 1998 and since then continuous efforts were being made by respondent No,1, to persuade the petitioner company, to pay the EOBI. But the petitioner company had been avoiding the same. Under section 11 of the EOB Act, the petitioner company was under obligation to register itself within 30-days of its establishment and on its failure, under section 12 of the EOB Act, the respondents had to carry out the registration. In the present case, two time survey was conducted at the office of petitioner Company. So, in these circumstances, the registration of the petitioner company was not unilateral act. If the petitioner company itself had been avoiding appearance before the authority, then it cannot be said that registration by itself was in violation of the natural justice. Furthermore, the petitioner company itself filed the petition and then appeal, wherein the petitioner had been properly heard.
9. In view of the aforementioned facts, it is held that the Employees Old-Age Benefit Act, 1976 is applicable to the petitioner company and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.