1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, CT-The Government of Sindh in the Labour Department vide Notification No, Lab-HI-1/67 dated 15th October, 1968 (Annexure 'A') in this C.P.No,D-877/91 had extended the application of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to the employees of the various establishments mentioned in the Schedule appended thereto and by similar notifications issued on various dates around 1968, the Social Security Cover was extended to the various establishments which arc the petitioners in other connected petitions. The petitioner-establishments as well as some of the Collective Bargaining Agents of the employees of these establishments resisted the extension of Social Security Cover to these establishments and made representations to the Government of Sindh (respondent No, 1) whereupon the latter passed separate orders on various dates during 1968-1969 suspending the operation of the notifications referred to above and thus staying the application of Social Security Cover to these establishments. In case of the petitioners in C.P. No, D- 877/91 such order was issued by the then West Pakistan Government (Labour Department) on 11th February, 1969 and conveyed to the petitioners establishment by the Joint Directorate of Labour Welfare, Karachi vide letter of the same date. Now after some twenty years Respondent No, 1 vide various orders passed around May 1991 has withdrawn the suspension and stay of the earlier notifications, thus reviving the applicability of the Social Security Cover to the employees of the petitioners in all these petitions. In the case of the petitioners in C.P. No, D-877/91 such letter (Annexure 'C') was issued on 9th May 1991. These are the admitted facts and the contention of all the petitioners is that it was unwarranted on the part of respondent No, 1 to thus withdraw the 22 years old stay of the applicability of Social Security Cover in an arbitrary manner without affording them an opportunity to show cause against such an action and according to them it is in breach of the principles of natural justice.
2. ' All these petitions are today fixed for Katcha Peshi and hearing of stay applications--except C.P.
3. No, D-833/1991 which had been earlier admitted for regular hearing and is today fixed for hearing of stay application--and preadmission notices having been issued to the respondents, Mr. K.M.
4. Nadeem learned A.A.-G. For respondent No, 1 and Mr. S.A. Sarwana learned counsel for respondent No, 2 are present. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties we have converted these cases in regular hearing cases and, since common questions of fact and law arise in all of them, we propose to dispose them of by this common judgment.
5. ' Mr. SA. Sarwana for respondent No, 2 contends that the impugned action of the Government is purely a ministerial act and there was no legal compulsion binding the Government to provide an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause against the impugned action. Mr. Sarwana further contended that the order of the Government of West Pakistan Labour Department dated 11th February, 1969 (Annexure B') and similar other orders in respect of other petitioners (whereby the opereation of the original Notifications of 15th October, 1968 or thereabout was stayed sine die, thereby suspending the applicability of Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to the petitioner- establishments) was, in fact, without jurisdiction and therefore illegal and void and as such its withdrawal has only rectified an illegality and the petitioners cannot be suffered to complain that they have been adversely affected nor there is any question of the principles of natural justice having been thereby violated.
6. There is no denying the fact that the order dated 11-2-1969 Anncxure `B' in Petition No, D-877/1991, and similar other orders of various dates around Feb. 1969, did confer certain benefits upon the petitioners. It is also not denied that these orders were never challenged by any one including the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution (respondent No, 2) for more than two long decades.
7. Under these circumstances we find ourselves unable to agree with the above contentions of Mr. Sarwana specially when "Institution" (respondent No, 2) itself acquiesced in the matter for such a long period.
8. ' The only other question which remains to be resolved is as to whether the second set of orders, suspending the applicability of the Social Security Cover on the petitioner-establishments, was an administrative action of the Government. We are of the view that, under the circumstances of the case, they are not. These orders, having been passed on the representations of the affected parties, did create certain rights in favour of, and conferred certain C benefits upon, the petitioner- establishments and therefore they are, if not judicial orders, at least quasi-judicial ones and in our considered view, if the Government contemplated their withdrawal, the petitioner-establishments were entitled to be heard before the contemplated action was taken. In short, in our view, the case attracts the dictum of 'Audi Alteram Partem' and the impugned orders are bad for its breach. As a result, we accept all these petitions and declare the impugned order dated 9th May, 1991 of the Government of Sindh as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It goes without saying that the direction of respondent No, 2 (SESSI) to its various Directorates to start recovering the Social Security contribution from D petitioner-establishments with effect from 5th May, 1991, conveyed to the Directorates vide respondent No, 2's memorandum dated 9th May, 1991 Annexure 'C' in this petition being an order based on the order dated 5th May, 1991 of respondent No, 1, is also equally void and illegal. The result is that the earlier orders of the then West Pakistan Government of 11th February, 1969 or thereabout staying the applicability of the Social Security Cover upon the petitioner-respondents, shall be deemed to still hold the field. The respondents are however free to take any action warranted by law after providing an adequate opportunity to the petitioner- establishments and to other parties likely to be adversely affected by such an order, to be heard on the subject