' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against the short order dated 15-12-1991 passed by High Court of Sindh at Karachi, whereby learned Judge in Chamber has dismissed appeal for reasons to be recorded later. Judgment containing detailed reasons was not produced. At the time of hearing of petition for grant of leave in this Court, it-was submitted that High Court while dismissing appeal by short order had put reliance upon judgment of same High Court in the case of Rahim Jan and Company v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachi (Misc. Appeal No,35 of 1989) against which leave has been granted by this Court converting it into Civil Appeal No,175-K of 1991 = 1993 SCM R 858 which is also heard alongwith this appeal. In the circumstances, leave had been granted to consider the main contention to the effect . Whether students, who are stautorily associated with appellant herein' and are being paid stipends, are employees and social security contribution is to be made in respect of them or not.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant is a firm of Chartered Accountants and provides practical training to students who are to qualify as Chartered Accountants. It is further stated that appellant is Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, which is established under the provisions of Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961, which also contains compuslory requirement of giving training to students who are to be qualified as Chartered Accountants. Appellant pays to such trainees/students token stipend to cover their pocket expenses. These students alongwith training also attend regular classes conducted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
3. For the sake of brevity hereafter Employee's Social Security Ordinance of 1965 will be referred as Social Security Ordinance and Social Security Institution will be referred as the Institution. On 20-10- 1986, appellant received demand notice for payment of Rs,3,68,440.57 as payment of Social Security Contribution in respect of students/trainees treated as employees. Appellant filed application under section 57 of the Social Security Ordinance, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of the Institution. Appellant then filed appeal before the First Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, which was dismissed and then appellant filed appeal in the High Court, which is also dismissed as stated above. In all these three forums, contention of the appellant is rejected and it is held that students/trainees working with appellant are employees and demand in respect of them for social security contribution is legal and proper.
4. We have heard in detail Mr. A. A. Shareef, A.S.C. For appellant and Mr. SA. Sarwana, A.S.C. For respondents. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that students working with them are not notified as apprentices under the Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962 and further appellant is not an industrial establishment. Assuming that it is so, even then there is enough material on the record to show that there does exist relationship of employer and employees between the parties. Before the Commissioner of the Institution, appellant produced Form of training contract prescribed under the Chartered Accountants Bye-Laws, 1983 and copy of Circular dated 15-3-1986 of the Institute of Chartered Accountants alongwith affidavit of Mr. Najmul Islam Chaudhry, a partner of appellant- firm. Training contract form shows that the trainee/student of his own free will binds himself as trainee/student to be trained by the Principal and to serve him for specified term of years. That throughout the period of service, trainee undertakes not to practise as public accountant or engage in any other business or occupation. Trainee also undertakes to keep the secrets of the Principal and his partners and of his clients and would not divulge their names and affairs of such clients and employers.
5. The circular of the Institute of Chartered Accountants dated 15-3-1986 mentioned above, provides rates of monthly stipends to be paid to the student/trainee stagewise depending upon progress of studies. In the beginning trainee/student gets Rs,400 per month, after passing intermediate examination Rs,1,000 per month and after passing either group of final examination Rs,1,500 per month. Now these trainees/students are no doubt students of the Institute of the Chartered Accountants but are employees of the appellant as it is manifestly clear from the terms of the contract and secondly that appellant is benefited in the routine work as trainees render positive assistance during the period of service. Under section 2(8) of Social Security Ordinance, "employee" is defined as under:- "'employee' means any person working, normally for at least twenty-four hours per week, for wages, in or in connection with the work of any industry, business, undertaking or establishment, under any contract of service .Or apprenticeship, whether written or oral, express or implied but does not include....
6. In the instant case, requirement is fulfilled by the fact that there is agreement between the parties which is a contract of service. This definition is to be read in conjunction with definition of "wages" as mentioned in section 2(30) of the Social Security Ordinance, which is as under:- "'wages' means remuneration for service paid or payable in cash or in kind to a secured person, not being less than remuneration based on the minimum rates of wages declared under the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 (XXXIX of 1961), without taking account of deductions for any purpose, under a contract of service or apprenticeship, expressed or implied, and shall be deemed to include any dearness allowance or other addition in respect of the cost of living and any payment by the employer to a secured person in respect of any period of authorised leave, illegal lock-out or legal strike, but does not include... "
7. Definitions of "employee" and "wages" in the Social Security Ordinance, when read together clearly show that students are employees as per terms of the contract getting wages. If their wages are low in cash amount, it does not matter for the reason that they are getting practical training from the appellant. Contract executed between the parties is contract of service even if apprenticeship in technical sense is ignored. Non-compliance of requirement of Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 would not come in the way and would not take the case out of ambit of application of Social Security Ordinance, for the reason that student is not regular employee and his remuneration in cash is supplemented in kind by training.
8. Reliance by the High Court in the impugned judgment on the case of Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution v. Consolidated Sugar Mills Limited 1989 SCM R 888 is not misplaced for the reason that in the reported case scope of section 20 of Social Security Ordinance was considered alongwith definitions of "employer" and "employee" in the light of the fact that employees were engaged through contractor. High Court concluded that neither the amount of wages nor the terms and conditions on which workers were to be employed by contractors were spelt out from the agreements. This Court observed that deficiencies pointed out by the High Court were not requirements of the definitions and it was not the finding that no wages were at all paid by the contractor or that they were not employed on contract of service. All the terms of the contract have not to be established once the contractual relationship is established. This Court held that reading of charging provision (section 20) alongwith definition of "employer" shows that conclusion is inescapable that owner of the industry is liable for employees engaged for his industry even through the contractor.. Reference to the reported case mentioned above, is helpful by way of analogy to show that if requirements of definitions are fulfilled proving contractual relationship, then it is not necessary to establish all the terms and conditions of the contract.
9. In the instant case, terms and conditions of the contract as mentioned above, when read with definitions provided under Social Security Ordinance clearly establish the fact 'that students/trainees are employees of the appellant and for that reason demand for social security contribution of the Institution in respect of them is legal and proper. For facts and reasons mentioned above, we are unable to find any flaw or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, which is hereby upheld and appeal, having no merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.