KHUDA BAKHSH MARRI, J.---This Constitution Petition under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution, is directed against ttie order passed by Chairman, Second Sind Labour Court/Second Social Security Court Karachi dated 2nd March 1973, whereby on an application under section 3:1 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 No. 7 n of 1972, has directed that the proceedings pending before him between the respondent No. 1 Doctor Mumtaz Ali and the present petitioner "would continue and the objection will be heard at the time of final arguments of the case after recording all evidence of the parties".
2. Shortly the facts as revealed from the petition are that the petitioner Sind Employees' Social Security Institution, a statutory body constituted under the West Pakistan Social Security Ordinance of 1965 entered into an agreement with respondent No. I whereby he agreed to provide medical care to the secured persons residing or working near Lawrence Road, Karachi on a payment of Rs.
200 p.m. As retainership in addition to the cost of the medicines supplied by him to the patients.
3. In June 1970 the petitioners introduced a new system whereby instead of paying the entire costs of the medicines supplied to the patients they started paying a flat rate of Rs. 4 p.m. Per secured worker attached to every Doctor employed by diem irrespective of the worker taking medical treat- -ment or not. Respondent No. 1 by his letter dated 16th September 1970 Annexure 'C' accepted the offer in his own words -'As a gesture of goodwill I have accepted the new system of billing so far as the bills of the establish--ments attached as a whole are concerned w.e.f. July I, 1970". He however made a request in the same letter that flat rate of Rs. 4 per capita is not enough which may be revised in the interest of the institution.
4. It appears that later on a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on the mode of payment of the bills submitted by the respondent who claimed payment under old system which was declined by the petitioner on the ground that the new system having been accepted, respondent No. 1 therefore is bound to take payment under now system prevalent with the institution concerning every doctor therefore no exception could be made in his favour.
5. On about 20th November 1972 respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Second rind Labour Court, Karachi which was later on amended to include pro--visions of the Social Security Ordinance as well. On 25-11-1972 the peti--tioner moved an application under Order VII, rule 10, section 151, C. P. C. Praying that the application be returned to respondent No. 1, as the Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.
6. On 2-3-1473 Labour Court-cum---Social Security Court ordered that the question of jurisdiction would be decided at the time of final arguments which has been impugned.
7. The grounds of attack against the impugned order, inter alia, are that Labour-cum-Social Security Court has no jurisdiction to try any dispute within the territory of Karachi, that respondent No. 1, Doctor Mumtaz Ali is not a workman under the definition of Industrial Relations Ordinance therefore Labour Court has no jurisdiction, that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 is not covered by section 57 of Social Security Ordinance therefore the Court has no jurisdiction and lastly that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature cannot be decided by respondent No. l and he has illegally assumed jurisdiction in the matter with a prayer that it may be declared that dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 is outside the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance as well as Social Security Ordinance, hence respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to try tile dispute. In support of the arguments that respondent No. 2 has no territorial jurisdiction to try the dispute, counsel for the petitioner produced and relied upon a copy of Sind Government Gazette, dated 1st April 1971 S. No. S. O. (I-11)-IX-(i)/70 concerning the constitution and jurisdiction of the Social Security Court in the Province of Sind. Two Social Security Courts were established, Court No. 1 for Karachi. The power is assigned to Labour Court No. 1, Court No. 2 has been assigned disputes of Hyderabad and Khairpur Division but this power is to be exercised at Labour Court No. 2 at Karachi. As the impugned order has been passed by Labour Court No. 2 at Karachi, therefore, according to the counsel the said Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain' a dispute or application under Social Security Ordinance, 1965 because powers with regard to Karachi are given to Labour Court No. 1, Karachi. We are afraid this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force because the impugned order dated 2-3-1973 has been passed by the Presiding Officer of Second Sind Labour Court, he has not passed the order as a Court functioning under section 60 of Social Security Ordinance, 1965. Even otherwise the petitioner at this early stage of the proceedings before the leaned Labour Court and proceeding on application under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, cannot be said to have been prejudiced by the impugned order, because the order quite clearly indicates that the objections of the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court as well as Social Security Court are to be decided on final arguments of the case. Naturally the petitioner will have full opportunity of raising legal objections and the decision would be given on that by the Court below. Had the impugned order been signed by the Second Labour Court No, 2 in capacity of Social Security Court, e in that case the arguments for counsel for the petitioner would have be-n valid. But here the situation is otherwise, therefore, we do not see any force in this argument.
8. The second point raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that respondent No. 2 is not a workman as defined in Industrial Relations Ordinance, because he is a medical practitioner who has been employed on contractual basis for a fee of Its. 200 p.m. Retainership to provide medical care to the secured persons, therefore the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 is of a contractual nature which must be governed by ordinary laws of Master and Servant. This argument equally does not appeal to us because this objection has been taken before the learned Labour Court which has not given any findings so far. Hence the appre--hension of the counsel for the petitioner that learned Court below has the jurisdiction, not vested in him, is premature because the legal objections admitted remain undisposed.
9. However it may be observed that undisputedly tire petitioner has employed respondent No. I under section 17 of the Social Security Ordi--nance to provide medical care to the secured persons.
The section reads as under .- "Medical Practitioners and Medical Boards.-(1) The institution shall appoint Medical Practitioners and Medical Boards in such Social Security Areas and in such manner as may be provided by regulations.
(2) The powers and functions of Medical Practitioners and Medical Boards, and the fees and allowances to be paid to such practitioners or the members of such boards, shall be such as may be provided by regulations."
Therefore prima facie relationship of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, are governed by Social Security Ordinance, 1965, as well as West Pakistan Employment Social Security Institutions (Service) Medical Attend--ance (Regulation, x967). The regulation apply to all the employees of the Institution and their families and under section 2 of this regulations autho--rized medical attendant has been defined as to mean "the Medical Official-in--charge of Social Security Dispensary or any other Doctor of the Institution, to provide medical treatment to its employees.
Now Chapter 6 of Social Security Ordinance, 1965, relates to determination of questions and claims between the petitioner, employees or any other persons. Section 57 being a relevant section in this regard is as under :- "Decisions on complaints, questions anal disputes.-If any complaint is received or any question or dispute arises as to-
(a) whether any person is a secured person within the meaning of this Ordinance ; or
(b) the rate of wages or average daily wages of a secured person for the purposes of this Ordinance ; or
(c) the rate of contribution payable by an employer in respect of an employee ; or
(d) the person who I or was the employer in respect of a secured person; or
(e) any benefit and the amount and duration thereof ; or
(f) any other matter in respect of any contribution or other dues payable or recoverable under this Ordinance 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 the person or persons concerned, in writing, stating therein the reasons for its decisions."
10. It is obvious that under clause (f ) of section 57 the complaint in respect of any contribution or other dues payable can be laid before the is, the Social Security Institution, which at the first instance is to he decided by it. Thereafter a review is provided under section 58 if any person is aggrieved by the order of the institutions and lastly appeal under section 59 is provided to an aggrieved person against the decision of the institution under section 57 or 58 to the appropriate Social Security Court, which admittedly are functioning in Karachi at present. Further remedy of appeal on substantial questions of law against the order of Social Security Court is provided before this Court under section 64 of the Ordinance.
11. It is by now well settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked where alternate and adequate remedies are provided and are available under the statutes. In this case the Extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Court is being invoked without exhausting all remedies which cannot be allowed in the circumstances of this case. As we are deciding this petition on this short question of law, we refrain from discussing certain case-law cited by counsel for the parties.
12. In view of the above, we are therefore of the opinion that this petition is Premature which is hereby dismissed but we snake no order as to costs.