' YAHYA AFRIDI, J.--- Messrs Abasyn University, through its Vice-Chancellor, the petitioner, seeks the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court praying for;-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that by accepting this writ petition, the impugned notices dated 21.10.2011 and 1.11.2011 firstly may be declared illegal, without lawful authority and secondly a writ of mandamus may also be issued to the respondents to return Rs,1,92,000/- illegally received from the petitioner with interest prevailing in market."
2. In essence, the present case revolves around the petitioner, stated to be a statutory body, established through Abasyn University Act, 2009 ("Act of 2009") having challenged the demand for contribution vide notices dated 21.10.2011 and 01.11.2011 for the period commencing from January, 2008 till September 2011 made by Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution ("Institution") under Employees' Old Age Benefit Act, 1976 ("EOAB Act").
3. The respondents were put to notice. They submitted their comments, wherein they have raised preliminary objections that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of challenging the impugned notices before the Institution under sections 33, 34 and 35 of the EOAB Act.
4. On merits, the respondents-Institution contended that the petitioner-University comes within the purview of an 'establishment', as defined in the EOAB Act, and was thus, served with the demand notices for the contributions due from January, 2008 to September, 2011; that the petitioner- University did not fall within the purview of statutory body, as provided under section 47(f) of the EOAB Act, as Mr. Muhammad Imranullah Khan, the Chancellor of the petitioner-University was also the Chief Executive of M/S Abasyn System of Education (Pvt.) Ltd. ("Company"), that owns and control all the assets of the petitioner-University and was being run on profit basis, hence a case for payment of contribution was made out. In fact, the respondent-Institution was seeking from this Court to pierce the veil of incorporation of the petitioner-University and the Company, and to see that, the will and mind behind the legal facade created by establishing the Company and Petitioner University, was only to circumvent the spirit of the regime provided for paying contribution under the EOAB Act. The worthy counsel sought reliance upon Ghee Corporation's case (1994 PLC 628) Sadiq Public School's case (2012 CLC 880), and PTCL.s case (2012 PLC 460).
5. On the other hand, the stance of the worthy counsel for the petitioner-University was that the petitioner-University is a statutory body, being the creation of Act of 2009, and hence, no contribution therefrom can be sought under section 47 of the EOAB Act; it was further contended that the impugned notices issued to the petitioner-University and the recoveries of Rs,192,060/- made from the University were dues of M/s Abasyn Institute of Management of Sciences ("Abasyn Institute"), a distinct person with no concern, whatsoever, with the petitioner-University and that the said payment was illegally extracted through coercive measures, and hence warrants its immediate return.
6. Valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard and with their assistance the available record perused.
7. Let us first address the preliminary objection raised by the worthy counsel for the respondent- Institution, regarding the maintainability of the present petition, on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy provided under section 33 of EOAB Act. The said provision provides that:- "33. Decision on Complaints, Questions and Disputes.
' If any complaint is received or any question or dispute arises as to;
(a) Whether a person is an insured person within the meaning of this Act;
(b) The amount of wages of an insured person for the purposes of this Act;
(c) The amount of contribution payable by an employer in respect of an insured person;
(d) The person who is . The employer in respect of an insured person;
(e) Entitlement to any benefit under this Act or as to the amount and duration thereof; and 2(ee) registration of industry or establishment; or ' any other matter in respect of any contribution or any [benefit] referred to in clause (e), or dues payable or recoverable under this Act relating to contributions or the aforesaid [benefits], the matter shall be decided by the Institution, in such manner, and within such time, as the regulations may provide and the Institution shall notify its decision to the person concerned in writing, stating therein the reason for its decision." (emphasis provided)
8. On careful reading of the aforementioned provision, it is noted that a complaint can be filed by the petitioner-University protesting its registration as an "Establishment", and thus, contesting the impugned demand notices of payment of contribution made by the Institution under the EOAB Act.
9. In case this Court is to determine the status of the petitioner as an "establishment" envisaged under the EOAB Act, then it would have to adjudge certain jurisdictional facts; as to the number, nature and scope of work of its employees, and nature and scope of business of the petitioner- University itself. These determinations can not be undertaken by this Court on the available record of the case. And for that resolution thereof, it would be appropriate for the petitioner-University to first avail the remedy provided under the EOAB Act.
10. When the worthy counsel for the petitioner-University was confronted with the alternative remedy provided under section 33 of the EOAB Act, he vehemently responded in rejecting the same being neither efficacious nor appropriate remedy for the petitioner-University. In this regard, the worthy counsel after initially vigorously denying the petitioner-University to come within the