AYESHA A. MALIK J. --- Through this ICA, the Appellant has impugned order dated 23.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No, 36074/2015.
2. The grievance of the Appellant is that the learned Sine Judge has dismissed the petition of the Appellant on the ground that altmate efficacious remedy is -available to the Appellant with reference to its grievance against the Provincial Employees Social Security Institution ("PESSI"), hence the petition is not maintainable. The Appellant is a Trust registered under the Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance, 1961. It runs schools and hospitals for public benefit. On 23.11.2000 a notification was issued in favor of the Appellant under Sub-section
(3) of Section 1 of the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 whereby Chaudhary Rehmat Ali Memorial Model Girls College, Township, Lahore was de-notified from notification of 24.7.1998. The notification of 24.7.1998 notified all those institutions which were required to pay social security contribution under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 ("Ordinance"). Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant provided an undertaking to the Respondents explaining that it was a charitable trust and that all employees of this trust have been provided medical facilities. Hence it should be exempted from complying with the requirements of the Ordinance, which request was duly acceded to vide notification dated 23.11.2000. Subsequently the Appellant was issued letters dated 25.4.2013. and 14.9.2013 in which demand was raised from the Appellant to pay social security contribution under the Ordinance, in terms of a subsequent notification issued on 18.7.2013.
Learned counsel argued that the Appellant was exempted in terms of a special notification issued by the competent authority and a general notification cannot take away the rights accrued in favour of the Appellant Without following due process. Learned counsel further argued that no remedy is available to the Appellant under the Ordinance for redressal of its grievance as the Appellant seeks a decision on the applicability of the notification issued on 23.11.2000 as opposed to the notification issued on 18.7.2013. In this regard, Social Security institution cannot look into the vires of a notification nor can it decide which of its notification is applicable. Learned counsel has relied upon Section 1(3) of the Ordinance which provides that the Ordinance shall apply to such classes of establishment as may be specified by notification and is not applicable to such classes of establishment as may be specified by notification. Since a notification was issued in favour of the Appellant, hence a general notification issued subsequent thereof cannot repeal or replace a special notification. Reliance has been placed on State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum and others(2017 SCM R 999),Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Manager v. Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Chairman and 4 others(1996 M LD 980), Neimat Ali Goraya and 7 others v. Jaffar Abbas, Inspector/Sargent Traffic through S.P. Traffic, Lahore and others(1996 SCM R 826) and Messrs Standard Printing Press v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (1988 SCM R 91).
3. On behalf of the Respondents, it is argued that the Appellant is liable to pay social contribution in terms of the requirements of law and the notification of 18.7.2013. It is also argued that the notification of 23.11.2000 is only for the benefit of Chaudhry Rehmat Ali Memorial Model Girls College, Township, and Lahore and not for the trust in general. Learned counsel further argued that the Appellant falls within the ambit of the Ordinance, hence the notification of 18.7.2013 is mandatory and requires compliance.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are in agreement with the learned counsel for the Appellant that alternate, efficacious remedy under the law was not available to him. We further agreed with the grievance of the Appellant that vide notification dated 23.11.2000 rights have accrued in its favour, which it has been enjoying since the year 2000. The Respondents admit that this notification has not been set aside by any subsequent notification particularity with reference to the Appellant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that since the notification holds the field, at least +he Respondents were obligated to inform the Appellant through a notice that the notification of 18.7.2013 is applicable and that the trust now fell within the preview of the Ordinance.
Without giving any notice or a right of hearing the Respondents proceeded on the assumption that the notification of 18.7.2013 is' applicable on the Appellant. In this regard we noted that notification dated 23.11,2010 is a special notification issued with specific reference to the Appellant. Notification dated 18.7.2013 is general in nature issued subsequently which defines the jurisdiction of PESSI and the benefits available for employees working within the Province of Punjab in terms of the Ordinance. As per this notification employees in the Punjab are entitled to the benefits under the Ordinance. Hence as per the Respondents, the Appellant also falls within its jurisdiction. The Appellant was exempted from social security contribution since 2000 in terms of the notification of 23.11.2010, At that time the Appellant raised a request before PESSI which was permissible under the law. The request was heard and on the basis of an undertaking by the Appellant notification dated 23.11.2010 was issued. The issuance of the notification created rights in favour of the Appellant which cannot be withdrawn without giving the Appellant an opportunity of hearing, without disclosing the reasons for withdrawal of a right granted and without giving the Appellant an opportunity to file a representation to explain why it is entitled to continue under the notification of 23.11.2000.
Furthermore we also note that admittedly the Appellant was given this benefit and not just the girls school, hence the right accrued under the notification of 23.11.2010 cannot be taken away through a general notification issued on 18.7.2013.
5. Under the circumstances, the instant appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 23.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No,36074/2015 is set aside. The Respondents are directed to follow due process if in their opinion the Appellant falls within their purview before raising any demand.