' This judgment will dispose of (I) F. A. O. No, 72 of 1979, and (2) F. A.
0. No, 73 of 1979, both of which have been filed under section 64(2) of the West Pakistan Employees'
Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (West Pakistan Ordinance No, X of 1965). As identical questions of law arise in both these cases, they are being disposed of together.
2. The appellants, who are employers, raised a dispute under section 57 of the said Ordinance, complaining that the demand by the Department for social security contribution from them on conveyance allowance, night shift allowance and house-rent allowance which they were paying to their workers, was without lawful authority. The question was examined by Mr. A. S. Faruki, Director (C & B), who dismissed the petitions of the appellants by a single order dated 26th June, 1978. This dismissal was challenged in separate appeals before Sh. Bashir Ahmad, Judge Social Security Court, Faisalabad, under section 59 of the Ordinance, but both the appeals were dismissed vide orders dated 1st February, 1979 which are now under appeal before me. The Social Security Court held that the appeals filed before it were time-barred, because the same were filed beyond thirty days, which was the period of limitation for such appeals prescribed under Regulation No, 6 of the Punjab Employees' Social Security (Determination of Manner and Time for Deciding Complaints and Disputes and Review of Decisions) Regulations, 1973.
3. The appellants have challenged the validity of the decision of the Social Security Court, urging that these appeals could not be dismissed on the question of limitation. The appellants' learned counsel submitted that the orders passed by the Director were without jurisdiction and therefore, a nullity in the eye of law, and as such the appellants could make an appeal at any time, notwithstanding the facts that the Regulations prescribed a period of limitation. It was also submitted that, in any case, the Governing Body of the Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution, who had made the Regulations, had no authority to do so under the Ordinance so as to prescribe a period of limitation for filing appeals before the Social Security Court, and as such no period of limitation stood prescribed.
4. So far as the appellants' first contention is concerned, the argument advanced on their behalf is that the Employee's Social Security Institution had delegated its powers to decide complaints and disputes under section 57 to the Commissioner, and that the Commissioner had no authority to further delegate the same powers to the Director. It is also argued that under section 18 of the Ordinance, the appointment of a Vice-Commissioner of the Institution is envisaged, and subsection (2) thereof lays down that the Vice-Commissioner shall perform the duties of the Commissioner when the latter is absent or prevented from acting. In view of this provision, it is argued that the Commissioner had no authority to delegate his powers to any person other than the Vice-Commissioner.
5. After hearing both the parties, I find that there is no merit in the above submissions. Under section 57 referred to above, the complaints and the disputes classified therein have to be heard by the Institution 2 which is defined in section 2(16) to mean "the Employees' Social Security Institution established under section 3". Under section 3, the Institution is given a corporate character having perpetual succession and Common seal. Section 4 lays down that the general direction and superintendence of the affairs of the Institution shall vest in a Governing Body, which with the assistance of a Commissioner, may exercise all powers and do all acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Institution. Section 77 empowers the Governing Body to "direct that all or any of its powers and functions may in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified, be also exercisable by the Commissioner or any other officer or authority subordinate to the Institution". The power to make Regulations is given under section 80, which empowers the Governing Body to make Regulation 'not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance or the rules", particularly in matters enumerated in the section.
Subsection (xxix) Of section 80 further clarifies that the Governing Body has the authority to make Regulations pertaining to "any other matter not provided for in this Ordinance or rules and necessary to give effect to the provisions of this Ordinance". It is in pursuance of these powers that the Governing Body made the Regulations which were published as "The Punjab Employees' Social Security (Determination of Manner and Time for Deciding Complaints and Disputes and Review of Decisions) Regulations, 1973. Relevant portions of Regulations Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are reproduced below for facility of reference : "3. If any question or dispute arises in respect of any matter enumerated in section 57, an aggrieved person may file a complaint before the Commissioner within 30 days of the arising of such question...
4. The Commissioner shall decide the complaint by the order in writing giving reasons for his decision within 60 days...
5. The Commissioner may, by an order in writing, authorise any other officer not below the rank of Director to exercise the powers of the Commissioner for disposal of complaints under Regulation No, 4."
The authorisation by the Commissioner to an officer not below the rank' of a Director to exercise powers of the Commissioner for disposal of complaints as mentioned in Regulation No, 5 cannot be regarded as being a sub-delegation of the powers. The delegation of powers to decide the complaints and the disputes under section 57, is made to the Commissioner as well as the subordinate officers, by the Governing Body itself, and through the same instrument, namely, the Regulations. The expression 'powers of the Commissioner for disposal of complaints under section 4' as mentioned in Regulation No, 5 is only a convenient way of referring to the powers which the Governing Body intended to delegate to other officers as well. It cannot be inferred from this expression that these powers were delegated to the Commissioner alone, and their delegation to any other authority would amount to sub-delegation. Similarly the power given to the Commissioner in Regulation No, 5 to "authorise any other officer" is merely a ministerial direction given to the Secretary of the Governing Body to perform his administrative duties. Merely because it is the Commissioner who has to make an order in writing in this behalf, does not mean that what he would do thereby, would amount to sub-delegating his delegated powers. He only acts as an agency for the Governing Body of which he is the Secretary, as is laid down in section 18 (2) (a), which is as follows :- "2. The Commissioner shall-
(a) be the chief executive of the institution and shall act as Secretary to the Governing Body."
The Commissioner being the Secretary of the Institution acts administer while carrying out the directions of Governing Body contained a in the Regulations to make an order in writing authorising an officer sot below the rank of a Director for disposal of complaints.
7. I also do not find any merit in the submission that in view of the provisions of section 18, which lays down that the Vice Commissioner shall perform the duties of the Commissioner when the latter is absent or prevented from acting the Director is prevented from deciding a dispute under section 57. Section 18 deals only with the executive functions of the Commissioner the delegated judicial function of the Commissioner are not to be exercised by the Vice-Commissioner automatically. However, it has already been observed above that it is not the powers of the Commissioner which have been delegated to the Director, but the powers of the Governing Body, who have delegated the same to the Commissioner as well as other officers. Section 77 of the Ordinance explicitly lays down that the Governing Body may direct all or any of its powers and functions to be exercised by the Commissioner or "any other officer or authority subordinate to the Institution". There is no question of the Vice Commissioner exercising the powers of deciding a dispute under section 57. These powers can only be exercised by the Institution or its delegatee in the manner laid down in Regulations. The orders passed by the Director, therefore, cannot be regarded as being without jurisdiction. These orders could be challenged in appeal provided one was filed within the period of limitation.
8. This brings us to the question of the validity of the Regulations in so far as they prescribe a period of limitation for filing an appeal. The appellant's learned counsel has contended that section 64 of the Ordinance which empowers the filing of an appeal to the High Court, also prescribes a period of limitation for the same. He argues that since no period of limitation is prescribed under section 57, it was the intention of the legislature not to prescribe any period of limitation. I regret my inability to accept this contention. Although the Ordinance does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Social Security Court, it must necessarily envisage the culmination of proceedings within a reasonable time. The prescribing of" a period of limitation for filing an appeal is, therefore, to be regarded as a matter necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Ordinance. Under the general provisions of section 80, as well as under subsection (2) (xxix) thereof the Governing Body had ample powers to make Regulations to prescribe a period of limitation for filing of appeals.
9. The appellant's learned counsel has next submitted that section 80 did not expressly empower the Governing Body to make Regulations to prescribe a period of limitation. He did not dispute the powers of the Government to do so by making Rules under section 79. This argument, too, is without any merit. Section 80 gives general powers to the Governing Body, and these are naturally to be exercised in fields which are not expressly delimited in the section. The power to lay down a period of limitation must be read in the section.
10. It is next contended that the Social Security Court which is empowered to hear appeals from the decisions of the Institution, is not a body subordinate to the Institution, and as such the Governing Body cannot regulate the procedure of the Court by prescribing a period of limitation. The contention is without any substance. The power to make Regulations having impliedly been granted to the Governing Body by section 80 of the Ordinance, it is immaterial if the Governing Body or the Institution stands at a lower pedestal than the Social Security Court in judicial matters.
11. In view of the above discussion, I find that the appellants' appeals were rightly dismissed by the Social Security Court as time-barred. The present appeals are, therefore, also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. #TBS (a) #TBE