This judgment will dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 5498/87, W.P. 3039/88, W.P. 7/89, W.P. 3686/89, W.P. 1845/90 and W.P. No.6082/90 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in all these petitions in nutshell is that the demand for additional contribution made by the respondent is illegal. The writ petitions were admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance and contested the petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that although the statute has provided a detailed machinery for the redress of the grievance yet the petitioners have straightaway filed these petitions, which raise a disputed question of fact.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since these petitions are pending for quite some time, therefore, these should be decided on merits.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
The admitted position is that the Legislature has provided a detailed machinery for the decision of any complaint, or any question or any dispute with respect to the matters detailed in section 33 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 while the procedure for decision of the complaints has been provided in the Employees' Old-Age Benefits (Determination of Complaints, Questions and Disputes) Regulations, 1980. The grievance of the petitioners is fully covered by section 33 of the Act of 1976. Moreover, the petitions raise disputed questions of facts, which require a detailed inquiry which is not possible in Constitutional jurisdiction. The admitted position is that the petitioners have not availed the remedy by way of complaints under section 33 of the Act of 1976, therefore, these petitions are rendered incompetent in view of the judgment in the case of M/s. Rupali Polyester v.
Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (1991 PLC 318). The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-- "This portion is strictly in accordance with the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Messrs Agri Auto Industries Ltd. (1990 PLC 21). This renders petition incompetent. The petitioner should have pursued his remedies with the Institution as provided by statute. This leads support to the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is incompetent and to the same effect are the unreported judgments of this Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. The same view was expressed by the Karachi High Court in Messrs Cowasjee and Sons v. Director, Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (1980 PLC 752 (a). The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that the provisions of sections 57 to 59 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, are para materia to the provisions of sections 33 to 35 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. 1, therefore, have no hesitation in upholding the preliminary objection."
6. Upshot of the above discussion is that these writ petitions are dismissed as incompetent.
However, the petitioners, if so advised, may avail their remedy with the Institution, who shall decide the same expeditiously. There is no order as to costs.