' JAVED IQBAL. J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 27-6-2000 passed by learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Intra-Court Appeal No,361 of 2000 whereby the judgment dated 3-4-2000 passed by learned Single Bench in Chamber of the Lahore High Court dismissing writ petition preferred on behalf of petitioner has been kept intact.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner is running various factories/units where excellent medical facilities have been provided and accordingly there was no justification whatsoever for the notification dated 29-6-1999 by the Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, whereby the provisions of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) were made applicable to the petitioner's establishment.
The said notification was challenged being unlawful, illegal and without jurisdiction by means of Writ Petition bearing No,16006 which was dismissed by means of judgment dated 3-4-2000 by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court. Being aggrieved Intra-Court Appeal was preferred which met the same fate and dismissed vide judgment impugned. Hence this petition.
3. Heard Mr. M. Saleem Sahgal, learned Advocate Supreme Court at length who mainly contended that the discretion as conferred upon Government of the Punjab under section 1(3) of the Ordinance has been exercised in a haphazard manner without having taken into consideration the relevant factors such as the excellent medial facilities which were already made available to the employees of their establishments and a full-fledged hospital was also maintained with a panel of Doctors, Specialists and Para-Medical Staff and moreso. The employees are also covered by Group Insurance. It is next contended that in view of the prevalent medical facilities the CBA Union has also opposed the issuance of such notification and introduction of Social Security Schemes in the establishments for sound reasoning as the enforcement of Social Security Schemes for a meager number of employees i,e, 43 could not be considered feasible and appropriate. It is argued that the discretion as conferred upon the Government of the Punjab cannot be exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner as unfettered discretion has never been conferred upon by the Legislature under the Ordinance.
4. Learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab supported . The judgment impugned being free from any illegality or infirmity by arguing that the Government of the Punjab was fully competent to issue the notification in question pursuant to the provisions as contained in section 1(3) of the Ordinance as no bar whatsoever was imposed in this regard.
5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. It is the case of petitioner that the discretion as conferred upon the Government of the Punjab under section 1(3) of the Ordinance is not unfettered and should have been exercised judiciously after having taken into consideration all the pros and cons which could not be done for the reasons best known to the Labour Department.
The said contention has been examined in the light of section 1(3) of the Ordinance which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "It shall come into force at once but shall apply only to such areas, classes of persons, industries or establishments, from such date or dates and with regard to the provisions of such benefits as Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf."
6. A cursory glance at the language in which the above section has been couched will show that the Government of the Punjab has been empowered to make the provisions of the Ordinance applicable to any 'areas, classes of persons, industries or establishments from such date as may be deemed fit and property. No condition or embargo whatsoever has been imposed upon the Government of the Punjab for issuance of such notification. The learned counsel on behalf of petitioner could not show any provision of the Ordinance whereby opportunity of hearing was to be afforded to the petitioner and thus the principle of audi alteram partem cannot be pressed into service. Needless to mention here that the prevalent medical facilities would have no substantial bearing on the controversy as it is for the employer to take care of the employees which does not constitute a bar for making further subscription which is quite meagre in nature and would have little financial impact. Learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or fact of public importance which could persuade us to grant leave to appeal.
' In such view of the matter the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.