JUDGMENT SAYED NAJAM-UI^HASSAN KAZMI, J. - This is an appeal under Section 64 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, against the order dated 28.6.1990 of learned Judge, Punjab Social Security Court, Institution, Lahore, by which he accepted the appeal of the respondent.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that Punjab Employees Social Security Institution, Sub-Office, Sialkot, raised a demand amounting to Rs. 91,926.75/- against the respondents as Social Security Contribution for the period of 1984-86. Respondent filed a complaint under Section 57 of the Punjab Social Security Ordinance, 1965, before the Commissioner Punjab Employees Social Security Institution, Lahore. The complaint was partly allowed on 6.4.1989 with the result that the amount was reduced from Rs. 91,926.75 to Rs. 57,097/-.
3. Feeling aggrieved, respondent went in appeal before the learned Judge, Punjab Social Security Court, Lahore, who accepted the appeal on 28.6.190, which order has been assailed with this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the liability to contractors towards the Social Security would continue, even if the workers were working for some contract. Learned counsel added that though the property was gifted in favour of the son yet the business being run in the premises of the respondent who remand liable to pay the Social Security Contribution.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that after the gifting out of premises, the property was rented out to different tenant, who executed the rent note in favour of done and the business was being carried by different persons in their on names and for their on benefits. Therefore, the learned Judge, Punjab Social Security Court, Lahore, rightly rejected the demand raised by the appellant.
6. From the available record, it is evident that the demand was raised by the appellant on the ground that the workers were working under contract and therefore, the respondents were liable to contribute. The defence was that the property was gifted out by Muhammad Alam to his son Raas Masood vide registered gift-deed dated 27.10.1977. Affidavit of Muhammad Yousaf, Khadim Hussain.
Rehmat Ullah. Muhammad Sarwar and Imtiaz Ahmad were produced to show that they got the shops on rent from Raas Masood and they were manufacturing the surgical goods independently and supplied the same to different firms dealing in surgical goods, it was maintained that they were not working under the respondents establishment nor they were employees of respondent.
Agreement of Khadim Hussain. Muhammad Saleem. Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Afzal and Imtiaz Ahmad were produced to show that they were tenant in the shops of Raas Masood. Even copies of Khadim Hussain were produced to show that those persons were registered under Shops and Establishment Order, 1969. Relying on this material, the learned Judge, Punjab Social Security Court, Lahore, concluded that the persons running business in the shops were not employee by the respondent nor they were paid remuneration by the respondent for the work done either as their employee or under any contract and therefore, there was no material or evidence for the appellant to claim liability of respondent. In this back-drop, the appeal was allowed and it was held that the respondents were not liable to pay the contribution demanded the appellant. The findings recorded by the learned Judge. Punjab Social Security Court, Lahore, do not suffer by any error of law and mis-reading of the recorded hence no ground is made out for interference.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, on being asked, did not deny that the appellant had to recover the Social Security Contribution from the persons who were liable tor the same and that if some-one-else was doing business they were liable to-pay Social Security Contribution, then the appellant could proceed against those persons. In this case, the persons who were doing surgical manufacturing work of surgical goods filed their affidavits and maintained that they were independently running those shops. Learned counsel submits that the appellant would have no hesitation to proceed against the owner of the business establishment who are manufacturing surgical goods in the shops in question and therefore, an observation is made to that effect, that the appellant shall proceed against the real persons instead of raising demand against respondent. There is no bar in the way to appellant to proceed against the owners of the business establishment who are running the shops and manufacturing surgical goods in the shops in question and have given affidavit to that effect, if they are otherwise liable to recover in accordance with law to make Social Security Contribution and the dismissal of this appeal, will not debar the appellant from proceedings against those persons in accordance with law.
8. For the reasons above, this appeal is dismissed with the above observations.