HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J.~ According to appellant they raised substantial questions of law with regard to interpretation of Section 22 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 before the respondent No. 1 namely Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, through its Commissioner hereinafter called the 'Institution'. They were partly heard on 20-10-1990 whereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time for production of record but it did not proceed. However on 3-1-1991 the appellant filed an application for adjournment in the office of the Institution. The learned Commissioner of the Institution instead of considering the adjournment application, proceeded in the matter in their absence and passed an Order against the appellant requiring them to pay Rs. 2, 26, 800/- being the dues payable to the Institution. Against this order the appellants preferred an appeal under Section 62 before the Social Security Court.
2. From the perusal of case diary of the Institution, it appears that the appellant's application for adjournment was not placed before the Commissioner who recorded non-appearance of the appellant and heard the arguments of respondent No. 2 and then reserved the matter for orders which were passed on 13-1-1991. In the said order, reference was made to the adjournment application moved by the appellant.
3. The first contention of Mr. M.L. Shahani, leamed counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is condemned un-heard and their application for adjournment was not considered at all by the Commissioner while passing the order dated 3*1-1991. According to Mr. Khalid Habibullah, learned counsel for the respondents, the appellant should have filed the adjournment application before the leamed Commissioner before whom the matter was fixed and not in the office of the Institution.
What however is pertinent to note is that the order dated 13-1-1991 was passed after ten days of the date of hearing but there was no reference to the adjournment application which must have reached him from his office before the said date It was the duty of the leamed Commissioner to have considered the adjournment application and passed order thereon which he did not. This question was also Raised by the appellant before the Social Security Court No. 1, Karachi but was not considered by it at all.
4. It was next argued by the leamed counsel for the appellant that the' appellant could not be condemned unheard. It was pointed out that the present Commissioner who passed the impugned order did not partly hear the case but it was his predecessor who after part-hearing of the case adjourned the case for production of record by the appellant. Thus the entire case was to be heard afresh by the present Commissioner; Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that the appellant could have moved to the Social Security Court No. 1 in appeal to record evidence under Section 62 of the Ordinance of 1965 but the appellant did not deliberately avail the opportunity, hence the petitioner's plea of violation of the principles of natural justice stands repelled by PLD 1977 S.C. 177.
5. The argument advanced by the leamed counsel for the respondents is without merit and the case cited by him has no relevance to the present case. Petitioner's case was partly heard by the predecessor of present Commissioner, before whom the record was to be produced by the appellant. However on the date of impugned order, it remained no more a part heard case as another person was notified as Commissioner to. Hear complaints, questions and disputes under Section 57 of the Ordinance. Thus besides production of relevant record, the case had to be argued out and heard afresh before him. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that it was a part heard case, is also not correct.
6. In so far as the adjournment application is concerned, admittedly no order thereon was passed by the learned Commissioner nor it was taken into consideration by him. Even the learned Social Security Court failed to take into consideration this aspect of the case which specifically found place in the memo of appeal.
7. The Institution, while deciding a complaint under Section 57 of the Social Security Act, and a Social Security Court while hearing an appeal under Section 59 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, are required to act judicially and not arbitrarily. A party must be given opportunity to- defend and plead its to rules of natural justice. In the present case the impugned orders purport to create liability against the appellants and there was all the more reasons Tor them to exercise greater caution while passing the impugned orders. Hence this appeal under Section 64 (2) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is accepted and impugned orders are set aside with direction to the Institution to decide the case of the appellant in accordance with law.
Resultantly, the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant in this Court stands discharged.
8. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.