' The petitioner challenges the imposition of an increase in its contribution of amounts due to the respondent Institution. The increase has been imposed under section 23 of the Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 as amended.
2. The circumstances leading up to the increase are relatively straightforward. A special allowance was allowed to employees of various employers under the Punjab Employees Special Act, 1988.
Social Security contributions of employers were thereafter calculated inclusive of the allowance.
This allowance was challenged by various companies (not including the petitioner) before this Court in writ petition. The writ petitions were dismissed. An appeal against the order of the High Court before the Honourable Supreme Court was also dismissed.
3. As a result, the respondent Institution imposed the increase in contribution under section 23 of the Social Security Ordinance, as referred to above. Thereafter, those companies, which had assailed the enhancement of contribution resulting from the special allowance before the High Court and before the Honourable Supreme Court, challenged such increase. The respondent Institution sought and obtained an opinion from the Law Department on the question of its entitlement to recover the increase imposed under section 23 of the above-referred Ordinance.
The Law Department has advised the respondent Institution that it may not recover the increase from those companies, which had agitated the matter before this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court. However, the Law Department has also expressed the opinion that the increase is recoverable from those companies. Which had not litigated the matter in Court.
4. This writ petition has been brought directly in the High Court on various grounds which have been set out in the petition, including the ground that the respondent Institution cannot discriminate between those companies which had approached this Court in writ jurisdiction and those which had not. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that all companies regardless of the fact as to whether or not they had challenged the increase, were entitled to the relief which the Institution is now allowing to the companies which had, in fact, approached this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that any dispute or contention relating to the contribution required to be made by a Company to the respondent Institution and any increase under section 23 can be challenged by the petitioner Company before the Social Security Court. Furthermore, a second appeal has also been provided on a question of law to the High Court where a party is aggrieved of an order passed by the Social Security Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn the attention of the Court to the case titled M/s R.C.D. Ball Bearing Limited v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachi (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 308) and the case titled Shamas Textile Mills Limited and others v. The Province of Punjab and 2 others (1999 SCM R 1477) in support of his contentions.
6. The contentions of learned counsel for the respondents on the question of the maintainability of the present petition have merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that the respondent Institution had already expressed its point of view based on the basis of the legal opinion, which had been obtained by it from the Government. This circumstance is not material because any opinion, which may have been expressed by a department of the Provincial Government, is not binding on a Court of law.
7. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner may, therefore, apply to the respondent Institution for a formal order. The respondent Institution shall pass such order within seven days from the date on which an application is moved in this behalf by the petitioner. The petitioner may thereafter avail its remedy by way of appeal before the Social Security Court. If such appeal is filed, the Social Security Court shall ,decide the matter, which is admittedly of a legal nature, within a period of 45 days from the date on which such appeal is filed. The Social Security Court while deciding the appeal before it, shall not be bound by any opinion which may have been expressed by any department of Government.
8. During the pendency of the proceedings before the respondent Institution and before the Social Security Court, the recovery of the increase imposed on the petitioner under section 23 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965. Shall not be effected. Copy Dasti.