' The petitioners are pharmaceutical company. By letter dated 16-3-1989, respondent No, 2 informed the petitioners that the Government of the Punjab was pleased to issue a Notification dated 12-12-1988, whereby the Social Security Scheme had been extended to the organisation of the petitioners with effect from 1-3-1989. The petitioner was directed to get the organisation as well as the employees drawing wages up to Rs,1,500 per month registered with the Punjab Employees'
Social Security Institution. It was further informed that the employees of the petitioners' establishment would be entitled to the benefits provided for in sections 33 to 45 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The petitioner company as well as its employees agitated against the coverage of the Social Security Scheme primarily on the ground that the employees were already getting much more before the scheme was enforced upon the petitioners organisation/establishment. By Notification dated 21-3-1990 issued by the Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, the Governor of the Punjab was pleased to modify the earlier Notification dated 12-12-1988, thereby deleting the names of the petitioners from the said notification. Needless to say that the petitioners had even challenged the issuance of the earlier notification dated 12-12-1988 passed by the Government through Writ Petition No, 102 of 1990, which was withdrawn on 20-2-1990 under the impression that the Government had agreed to withdraw the social security scheme in respect of the petitioner company. It seems that the petitioner company had paid the due contribution for the period the Notification dated 12-12-1988 remained in force till the name of the petitioners was deleted by another Notification dated 21-3-1990.
Somehow the Notification dated 22-3-1990 remained to be unpublished, for a long time, in the official Gazette. The same has now been published recently. However, the respondents issued impugned demand notices dated 24-5-1997 and 29-5-1997 asking the petitioner company to make the payment of the social security contribution for the periods from February, 1989 to March, 1997.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already made the payment of the social security contribution from February, 1989 to March, 1990, when the name of the petitioner was deleted vide Notification dated 21-3-1990, which was finally published in 1997. It was further submitted that once the social security coverage had been withdrawn by the Government, the respondents had no power to issue impugned demand notices and to take coercive measures for the recovery of the huge amounts by exercising powers under the provisions of sections 81, 82 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents stated that earlier Notification dated 21-3-1990 had not been published in the Gazette. Therefore, the respondents were well within their jurisdiction to raise demand and take measures for recovery of the contribution for the period during which the notification by the Punjab Government had not actually been published in the official Gazette deleting the name of the petitioner. The learned counsel placed reliance on the case of the Province of East Pakistan v. Major Nawab Khawaja 14asan Askary and others PLD 1971 SC 82), Muhammad Ishaq v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab (PLD 1977 SC 639).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. Find that soon after the issuance of a Notification dated 12-12-1988, the A Government of the Punjab itself realised its mistake for applying the Social Security Scheme qua the petitioner company when its employees were more than satisfied with the benefits and facilities being already provided for by the petitioner company.
Therefore, the Governor of the Punjab by another Notification dated 21-3-1990 was pleased to amend the earlier Notification dated 12-12-1988 deleting the name of the petitioner in exercise of the powers under subsection (3) of section 1 of West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The mere fact that the said notification was published by the public functionaries much later in 1997 would not make any differences in the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner company could not be penalised for the inaction or failure on the part of the Government Department to publish the notification immediately after its making. The cases referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents are not relevant to the controversy. involved. In the case of Hasan Askari (supra) the publication of the notification in the Gazette was mandatory for taking Acquisition Tenancy Act, 1950. Similarly in the case of Muha'mmad Ishaq (supra), the requirements of section 17 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961 were to he strictly complied with for commutating limitation of 30 days from the date of publication of the notification. I fail to understand as to how a statutory body like the respondents institution can take such an objection of the non-publication of the Gazette Notification when the petitioner was not responsible for the publication and it was for the Government Department itself to do the needful immediately after the issuance of the notification. The respondent was not entitled to issue demand notices once they had become aware of the formal decision of the Government of the Punjab withdrawing the social security coverage in respect of the petitioner company. The failure of omission of the public functionaries ordinarily cannot make the private person to suffer any harm or injury. In the case of Muhammad Siddique v. The Market Committee, Tandlianwala (1983 SCM R 785), it was held that depending upon the circumstances of each case mere fact that publication in Gazette was delayed, could neither invalidate the notification nor make its operation retrospective as such vis- a-vis date of actual signing. In the present case the notification was prepared and signed on 30-7- 1997 was held effective from that date despite the same having been published in the Gazette with a delay of some months. Similar view was taken in the case of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Late Ch. Muhammad Ahsan through Legal Heirs and others (1991 SCM R 2180), in which it was held in the context of acquisition of land under the Defence of India Rules, 1943 the mere fact that the publication of the notification in the Gazette was delayed for more than 50 years, it could not invalidate the effect of the notification from the date from which it was issued.
In the case of Manzur-ul-Haq v. Controlling Authority, Local Councils, Montgomery and others (PLD 1963 SC 652) (at page 657) it was held that mere extending of a provision for notification is a wholly insufficient basis for saying that the absence of a notification will stand in the way of the person, whose office is to be notified. It has been further held that unless there be something in the language of a statute which shows that the person concerned will not commence to hold an office till there is a notification in the Gazette, a provision for a notification should not be interpreted as a condition precedent to the holding of an office. In the case of Muhammad Tufail v. Punjab Local Councils Election Authority and 4 others (1990 CLC 68 the question was that an election petition could be filed before the appropriate Election Tribunal in anticipation of the publication of the notification of the result of the election in the official Gazette. It was further held that once a notification was signed and issued such an election petition could be filed before the Election Tribunal concerned and the Election Authority could not assume the jurisdiction merely on the ground of absence of publication of the notification in the official Gazette.
In this view of the matter the impugned notice/action issued/taken r. By the respondents are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal '"' effect. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.