' This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No, 790 of 1997 calling in question judgment and decree, dated 23-4-1997 of the learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and affirming the judgment and decree, dated 13-1-1997 of the learned trial Court.
2. A suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of damages was filed by the petitioner against the respondents wherein the acts of the respondents were challenged on the grounds of being illegal and mala fide and the proceedings for recovery of Rs,8,845 were questioned on the ground of being without jurisdiction and as a consequential relief a decree for Rs,15,000 as damaged was claimed. The petitioner claimed that in 1973, Pak Tea House was registered with Punjab Employees Social Security Institution. The petitioner made a number of communications and applications for re-assessm ent of the liability. According to the petitioner, it was exempted from Social Security Contribution as a number of employees were less than the required limit and that the payment of Rs,8,445 was arbitrary and in violation of the directive issued by the Chief Minister. The petitioner raised serious allegations against respondent No,3 and claimed that he had been trying to extort money and receive illegal gratification by exerting illegal pressure and, therefore, the acts of the respondents tainted with malice.
3. The suit was resisted by the respondents who raised an objection that the Punjab Employees Social . Security Institution had exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and, therefore, Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
4. The learned trial Court vide, judgment dated 13-1-1997, directed that the plaint be returned under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. for presentation in the Court of competent jurisdiction. It was observed that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction in the matter, and therefore, the petitioner should approach the competent forum.
5. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge did not interfere with the view taken by the learned Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal. It was observed that the petitioner could file writ petition but could not file the suit in the Civil Court and there being special law, general law had no application.
6. Feeling aggrieved from the orders of the Courts below, the petitioner filed this revision petition.
Pre-admission Notice was issued to the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it was deemed appropriate to hear the main revision by treating it as a Pakka and admitted matter. Accordingly, the parties were required to address the arguments in the Revision as Pakka matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no bar in the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain the suit. It was submitted that the acts of the respondents were challenged on the grounds of mala fide and without jurisdiction and a decree for damages was claimed which matters could exclusively be decided by the Civil Courts. He further submitted that although there is no provision in the Social Security Ordinance which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts yet any bar in the special statute would not deny or deprive the Civil Courts of jurisdiction to review orders of the authorities, with a view to determine if the same were without jurisdiction or in violation of the law under which the authorities were functioning.
7. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the special law will become redundant if the suit is allowed to proceed in the Civil Court. Reliance is placed on PLD 1976 Kar.
1228.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it is observed that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have considerable force. The acts of respondents were challenged on the ground of being mala fide and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has specifically questioned jurisdiction of respondents to take cognizance of the matter. Again, allegations of corruption and compelling the petitioner to submit to the illegal demand has been made and a decree for damages has been claimed while raising specific allegations of mala fides.
Such like questions can be determined only by the Civil Court. There is no bar in the Social Security Ordinance to entertain such like suits by the Civil Court.
9. The case referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents i,e,, PLD 1976 Kar. 1228 is not applicable as the same has distinguishing facts. On the contrary, it is held in M/s. Tasneem Mechanical Works v. Punjab Employees Social Security Institution and 2 others (PLD 1978 Lahore 805) that the jurisdiction of Civil Court cannot be taken away to adjudicate what legal effects the orders passed under the Ordinance will have on the rights of the parties. The following rule was laid in the said case:-- "It is true that ordinarily a party in Social Security matters should exhaust all his remedies provided in the Ordinance before invoking the aid of Civil Court, but there is no provision in the Ordinance itself, which may bar the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain and decide whether the act of the authority purporting to have been done in the exercise of the power conferred by the Ordinance could be validly done under the Ordinance. It cannot, therefore, be said that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is taken away to adjudicate what legal effects the order of the authority passed under the Ordinance will have on the rights of parties. In the instant case, the plaintiff firm has specifically asserted that the act of respondents was against law and based on mala fides. It is the plaint and not the written statement which determines the jurisdiction of the Court. In case the plaint contains assertions which are only for the Civil Court to decide, its jurisdiction is not taken away in any case.
It is, therefore, wrong to say that the plaintiff failed to prove the contentions in the right forum." '
10. In Hamid Hussain v. Government of Pakistan and others 1974 SCMR 356,' it was held that the jurisdiction of Civil Court even if barred and conferred upon the Special Tribunal, the Civil Courts being Courts of ultimate jurisdiction have jurisdiction to examine the acts of the forum if they are not in accordance with law. In this case, the acts of respondents were challenged on the grounds of mala fide and being without jurisdiction as the Ordinance was stated not to be applicable to the actions of petitioner's concern. Even the relief for damages was claimed. In view of the rule laid in the cases noted supra, and also keeping in view the nature of the allegations made and relief claimed in the plaint, it could not be said that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction. The allegations of mala fide etc. have been taken in the plaint which are exclusively to be inquired into and determined by the Civil Court. The two Courts below, therefore, fell in error in assuming that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred or that the petitioner should approach the forum under the Social Security Ordinance or file writ petition to seek relief. The view taken by the Courts below is contrary to the law and therefore, cannot sustain.
11. For the reasons above, this revision is accepted the judgments of two Courts below are set aside, the case is remanded to the learned trial Court for decision of the suit on merits and in accordance with law, after framing issues and recording evidence and hearing the parties. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 20-10-1997 which will positively dispose of the suit within three months with intimation to the Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court.