' The appellants have filed appeal under section 64 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (Ordinance No, X of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), against the jugment of the Sind Social Security Court No. 1 dated 17th December, 1977. The facts briefly stated are as under:-
2. The Ordinance was made applicable to the establishment known as "Muhammadi Tiles and Concrete Works". However, at the time the aforesaid firm had two partners, namely, Muhammad Abbas and Abdur Rasool. The establishment stopped paying contributions from November, 1974 stating that they had closed their firm. It is admitted position that the aforesaid two partners took Mst. Marzia J. Ali as a third partner and restarted the business in the name of Al-Mohammadi Tiles Industry.
3. The appellants asked the respondents to continue paying the contributions but they refused to do so and filed an appeal in the Social Security Court No. 1, at Karachi (Appeal No, 12/1976). The aforesaid Court held that no contribution was payable and the order has been challenged in the instant appeal.
4. It is the contention of the appellants that by the change of name and even the change in constitution of the partnership by addition of a new partner the establishment cannot be taken away from the purview of the Ordinate. It has been mentioned in the memo. Of appeal that there is no judgment of any High Court on the point in issue which relates to interpretation of the words "employer" and "establishment". It has been argued by Mr. S. A. Sarwana, the learned counsel for the appellants that the essential object to be kept in view in attempting to interpret the Ordinance is that it is a beneficial or remedial legislation for ameliorating the lot of the working class and importance therefore, is to be given to the benefits and remedies given to the workmen or employees rather than the constitution or the name of the organisation which as an establishment employs them. The learned counsel has also laid stress on the facts of the instant case in which the same business is carried on in the same place or business and the same secured workmen continue to work for the establishment. It is argued by the learned counsel that change in the name and addition of person as partner do not change the entity of the establishment for the purpose of application of the Ordinance and holding otherwise would lead to recourse to such expedients for depriving thousands of workers from the benefits available under the Ordinance.
5. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. And another v. Sind Employees' Social Security Institution and another, while interpreting the words "employee" and "establishment" the principle of interpretation of legislation of the nature of the Ordinance was considered and it was observed as under:-- "There is no doubt that we are dealing with a beneficial or remedial legislation conceived as a means of ameliorating the lot of the working class, and as such it would be in keeping with the accepted principle of interpretation, as observed in Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R., Karachi v.
Bashir Ahmed that it should be so construed as to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief, or else it would frustrate the legislative intent. It would appear, therefore, that, in keeping with the object of the legislation, as wide an interpretation should be placed on the terms "employee" and "establishment" as permissible within the language employed in the statute."
' While interpreting the term "establishment" as defined in clause (11) of section 2 of the Ordinance it was observed that the term was not confined in its scope to merely the for walls of the physical premises where the notified establishment may be located and emphasis was put on the question whether the structure wherever situated could be considered to be integral to the main functions and object of the establishment. In the instant case it has not been controverted that business of the establishment. When it was notified to be subject to the Ordinance continues to be the samel and the place of business even is the same.
5. The term "employer" has been defined in clause (9) of section 2 of the Ordinance as under:- "9) 'employer' means in the case of works executed or undertakings carried on by any contractor or licensee on behalf of the State, the contractor or licensee working for the State, and in every other case the owner of the industry, business, undertaking or establishment in which an employee works and includes any agent, manager or representative of the owner."
5. It is quite clear that the business or undertaking of the establishment remains the same even after the addition of partner in the firm and it is also apparent that any change of name of the owner could not possibly have any effect on the safeguards and benefits provided to the employee in such establishment. As very pertinently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants the very purpose of legislation would be defeated if the benefits provided in Chapter of the Ordinance to the workmen employees are allowed to be retrenched by adopting the expedient of change of the firm name or any change in the composition of the firm which owns the establishment. The liability of the owner as employer in respect of ever employee to contribute to the employees social security fund, cannot possible be be interpreted to depend on the name or composition of partnership concerning the establishment. The change of name and addition of a partner, therefore, do not exclude the application of the Social Security Ordinance to the notified establishment. The judgment of the Social Security Court No. 1, at Karachi, dated 15-12-1977 cannot, therefore, be maintained and is set aside and it is hereby ordered that the respondents continue to be covered under the Social Security Ordinance and are liable to have the secured workers registered with the Institution and pay contribution in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.1