' DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---We intend to dispose of aforesaid three petitions by a common order as the same are directed against consolidated judgment dated 17-2-2000 passed by learned Sindh High Court involving common questions of the facts and law whereby three petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed.
2. Petitioners are carrying on business of stevedoring at the Port of Karachi providing services in connection with loading and unloading of cargo to outgoing and incoming vessels at the Port. They are registered with the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution and making contributions in respect of whole time employees in their respective establishments. In 1989-90 respondent No,2, however, demanded payment of contribution in respect of wages paid to Dock Workers provided them by the Karachi Dock Labour Board and engaged by them from time to time. Petitioners controverted their liability claiming that the aforesaid Dock Workers were not employed by them and preferred an adjudication petition before respondent No,2. This petition was rejected against which unsuccessful appeals were preferred obliging the petitioners to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
3. Main controversy between the parties before the High Court appears to be whether Dock Workers engaged by the petitioners through Dock Labour Board could be treated as their employees for purpose of making contributions under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1976), in terms of Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1974 and Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973, deemed to have been prepared in terms of section 3 of the aforesaid Act, 1974.
4. Learned High Court in the impugned judgment after an elaborate narration of facts and consideration of the legal points arising out of the aforesaid legislation came to the conclusion that the petitioners being the employers of the Dock Workers employed by them through Karachi Dock Labour Board were liable to pay contribution to the respondent Institution at 5% of the wages actually paid to a Dock Worker which was payable on the basis of actual work performed. Before the High Court while the petitioners relied upon the case reported as Veera v. Kazi & Kazi Limited (PLD 1990 SC 435) respondent referred to a recent judgment of this Court in Lahore Race Club v.
Deputy Director, Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (1998 SCM R 1571).
5. Learned High Court did not accept the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners and dismissed the petitions with the observation that as the petitioners' failure to make contribution was not wilful and deliberate but upon a bona fide impression that they were not liable to do so, authorities concerned shall take this circumstance into consideration while making a fresh demand from the petitioner.
6. At the hearing Mr. Akbar Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner reiterated the same arguments which were raised before the High Court by two different Advocates while Syed Zaki Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondent rightly supported the view taken by learned members of the Division Bench in the Sindh High Court which does not suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, misinterpretation of the provisions of law or any other legal or factual defect of jurisdiction. Indeed the High Court has summarized the whole controversy in paragraph 13 of the judgment which takes care of all the contentions and submissions made by the parties' leaned counsel. It may be reproduced for the sake of brevity and convenience as under:-- "13. Even otherwise there seems to be no rational basis for exclusion of workers performing a particular type of work from the benefits of welfare legislation under the EOB Act. In accordance with the settled principles such legislation must be liberally construed and its benefit extended to the largest possibie,number of people. It may be observed that the principles of law laid down in the case of Veera and others v. Kazi & Kazi (PLD 1990 SC 435) cannot even by analogy applied to the instant case. In the first instance it needs to be appreciated that their Lordships were applying the provisions of the Workers Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972, which requires every employer of an Establishment liable to pay education cess. In the instant case, however, compulsory insurance has to be obtained in respect of employees both in an industry or an establishment. As discussed above, if the Dock Workers are found not to be attached to any establishment they are certainly engaged in an industry. Moreover, in the above-cited precedent, their Lordships were persuaded to hold the Ordinance in question inapplicable and anamalous situation that might have arisen by holding the 20 Stevedoring Companies liable to pay cess in respect of the entire body of 6000 load Dock Workers, though such workers would be actually employed by them merely for a few days in a year. No such consequence can be spelt out by application of the EOB Act to Dock workers. The employers (Stevedores) are only required to contribute 5% of the wages actually paid to a Dock Worker and such payment is made on the basis of actually work performed. If a worker is employed by Stevedore for two days in a month only 5% of 2 days' wages is to be contributed."
7. Having heard learned counsel, at quite some length and analysed the impugned judgment we are of the considered view that by dismissing the instant petition learned High Court neither acted arbitrary nor in violation of the settled principles of law. In fact the question of law has been set at rest by this Court in Lahore Race Club's case (supra) and furnishes a complete answer to the points raised on behalf of the petitioners. Para. 17 of the judgment being relevant and attracted in the circumstances of the case may be reproduced for the sake of advantage as under:-- "17. In discovering whether any amount payable as wages is liable to contribution, first it is to be seen whether the employee falls within the definition of section 2-bb and thereafter liability of contribution should be determined in accordance with section 9 read with other provisions of the Act. Here, the persons in respect of whom contribution is demanded, have been rightly found to be employees in terms of section 2-bb of the Act by the Courts below. The mere fact that the disputed employees were working on part-time basis could not be a valid reason for excluding them from the category of employees as envisaged by section 2-bb of the Act. The appellant is, therefore, not absolved from the liability to pay contribution under the Act, a demanded by the Institution."
8. Resultantly, petitions are devoid of any merit and hereby dismissed.