1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh whereby Constitution petition filed by the respondent against the demand by the petitioners for contribution in respect of employees drawing more than Rs,20 per day as wages was dismissed. The result of the petition has gone in favour of the petitioners, but they are aggrieved by certain observations made by the Court. The learned counsel has particularly referred to the following observation:-- "The observations made by the Supreme Court, earlier reproduced in this judgment, therefore, make it abundantly clear that section 20(4)(a) of the said Ordinance is to be interpreted in harmony with section 2(8) of the Ordinance and section 20(4)(a) was never meant either to enlarge or control the definition of 'employee' given in section 2(8). Consequently, if the employer is compelled by the respondent No, 2 to make contributions in respect of persons whose wages exceed Rupees one thousand and five hundred per mensem, the employer can raise a valid objection in this regard because such action no doubt would be in violation of the relevant provisions of Ordinance X of 1965."
2. ' The main grievance of the learned counsel is that this plea was neither raised nor argued by the petitioners' Advocate and therefore it should be struck down as the judgment was passed without hearing any arguments of the parties. While making this observation the learned Judges dismissed the petition on the ground that alternate remedy available under the statute had not been exhausted by the respondent. Mr. Sarwana, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to sections 2(8) and 20(4) of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 and also the meaning of the word 'appointed' to contend that the respondent is liable to pay contribution on the wages of all the employees who are working in or in connection with the business or industry of the respondent establishment except those who are appointed on wages exceeding Rs,1,500 per mensm. The learned counsel referred to various cases and the dictionary meaning of the word 'appointed' to contend that the amount of wages relates to the date of initial appointment and not subsequent dates. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to grant leave on this aspect of the case as this question should be dealt with by the High Court and it is only after their considered opinion has been expressed that the matter can be agitated in the Supreme Court. In this way we will have the benefit of the opinion of the High Court as well. Furthermore, Mr. Sarwana stated at the bar, that there are several petitions on this question pending in the High Court or before the Authority. We are, however, inclined to grant leave on the question whether, While deciding the petition on a preliminary point if the merits of the case have not been argued, was it proper to adjudicate that issue and pass the judgment on merits. Leave is granted.