' Petitioner through a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction challenged application of West Pakistan Social Security Ordinance 1965, Notification Noll-12(Lab-II)74 dated 15-10-1974 upon it and demand of social security contribution through Letter No,SSLE/Cont/83/Circle-A/1080 dated 21-2-1983 by the respondents for petitioner's employees. This suit was decreed by learned Civil Judge, Lahore vide judgment and decree dated 26-9-1988. The respondent filed an appeal.
Learned Additional District Judge, Lahore through judgment and decree dated 9-2-1992 .Accepted the appeal, set aside the above said decree and dismissed petitioner's suit. Hence the present revision petition against judgment and decree dated 9-2-1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above-referred 'Notification of 1974 was issued in respect of Snack Bar by the name of Go-Go and the petitioner has no concern, connection, association or business or any other relationship with the establishment known as Go- Go. It was further contended that the premises where petitioner's Snack Bar is being run, was previously rented out to Go-Go Coffee Bar through Mr. R.A. Bhatti as tenant whose ejectment was obtained after a prolonged litigation between the parties till the Supreme Court of Pakistan from 1977 to October, 1982. It was also stated by the learned counsel that after ejectment of Go-Go, the 'present Snack Bar was set up in the said premises by the name of Paradise Snack Bar, which is an establishment independent from Go-Go Coffee Bar, wherefor, Notification of 1974 is inapplicable to the petitioner and unless and until a proper Notification is issued to cover petitioner establishment, social security contribution cannot be demanded under section 1(3) of the Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965.
' Learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the petitioner was established in the same premises, where Go-Go Coffee Bar was being managed, therefore, Notification No,11-12(Lab- II)74 dated 15-10-1974 issued to cover Go-Go Coffee Bar alongwith many other establishments, read with Punjab Government Notification No,11-17(Lab-II)75 dated 21-10-1975 will continue to apply to the petitioner as well.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the law, the Notifications and the record. It is not denied by the respondent that the premises in question i,e, Shop No,8-9 in Building No,1 Commercial Zone, Liberty Market, Gulberg III, Lahore, was previously let out to one Mr. A.R. Matti who established Go-Go Coffee Bar in the said premises. And it was after prolonged litigation of about five years on civil and criminal side that the above said tenant was evicted from the said premises in October, 1982. It is also an admitted position that Go-Go Coffee Bar was a covered establishment in terms of Punjab Social Security Ordinance, 1965 under above-referred Notification dated 15-10-1974 (Exh, D-1) for the purposes of application of the said Ordinance and payment of social security contribution. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner i,e, M/s. Paradise Snack Bar, an unregistered firm was established in the same premises from where Go-Go Coffee Bar was evicted and the two establishments are neither associated nor connected with each other in any manner whatsoever. The only connection between two establishments is the same "premises". After eviction of Go-Go Coffee Bar, the petitioner was set up, established and carried out from the "same premises". It was on this basis that through impugned Letter No,SSLE/Cont/83/Circle-A/1080 dated 21-2-1983 the respondent demanded social security contribution from the petitioner qua its employees.
4. The only question involved in the present petition is as to whether petitioner having been established in "the same premises" as the evicted Go-Go, attracts applicability of Ordinance of 1965 to be liable to pay Social Security contribution for its employees. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that since Notification dated 15-10-1974 was issued to cover "Go-Go Coffee Bar" Liberty Market, Gulberg, Lahore at Serial No,8 of the Schedule to said Notification, therefore, any establishment set up within the premises where "Go-Go" existed, shall be taken to be the covered establishment under Punjab Social Security Ordinance, 1965. Further, support was drawn by learned counsel for the respondent through Notification No,II-17(Lab-I1)75 dated 21-10- 1975 published in the Punjab Gazette on January 30, 1976, which provided that "the Ordinance shall continue to apply to all covered establishments including those found working within the premises of such establishments under any other name with immediate effect".
' The perspective of the case demands re-production of Notification dated 15-10-1974 as well which reads as under: "In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Employees'
Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (West Pakistan Ordinance X of 1965), the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to apply, with effect from the 1st November, 1974 the said Ordinance to the employers and Employees of establishment mentioned in the Schedule annexed hareto and/or any other unit functioning in the premises of these establishments and to direct that the employees of such establishments shall be entitled to the benefits as provided in sections 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the said Ordinance.
' SCHEDULE ' Sr. No, Name and Address of Establishment Messrs.- 1.
2..
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. .
8. Go-Go Coffee Bar, Liberty Market, Gulberg, Lahore, 9.
10..
11 .
12
13. ......
14..
15. .................................................
16
17. .........................................
18. ...............................................
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24. ..........
25. ......................................
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
' The above reproduced Notification was issued under section 1(3) of the Punjab Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 which provides that:-- 1."Short title, extent, commencement and application.--(1) This Ordinance may be called the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965.
(2) It extends to the whole of Pakistan
(3) 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 provision of such benefits as Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf."
In terms of above subsection (3) of section 1 (ibid), though the Ordinance became effective with immediate effect, yet its application was postponed in respect of areas, persons, industries and establishments, from a date "as the Government may, by Notification, specify in this behalf". This obviously means that till such a Notification is issued by the Government specifying the date and the establishment etc. Therein, the provisions of the Ordinance will not be automatically attracted to an establishment. This statutory provision mandatorily provides that the Ordinance can only be made applicable upon issuance of a Notification by the Government therein specifying and particularizing the "areas, classes of persons, industries or establishments" to which the provisions of the said Ordinance are meant to be imposed. Unless and untill such areas, classes of persons, industries or establishments are named in the Notification, the provisions of Ordinance cannot be extended to any area, any class of persons, any industry or any establishment.
5. In my opinion, the scope of applicability of the Ordinance has been well defined in the above said subsection (3) of section 1. The Ordinance can be made applicable, upon Notification, to the following:
(i) Areas;
(ii) Classes of persons;
(iii) Industries; or
(iv) Establishments.
' It is obvious that applicability of the Ordinance has been restricted to the above prescribed four domains. A "premises" is not one of the domains independently categorized to attract the provisions of the said Ordinance. The term "premises", as employed in the above said Notifications, is to specify the place where an "establishment" is housed or located. Premises connotes a place accommodating an industry or an establishment. By itself premises has no place in the Ordinance independent of an industry or establishment to attract applicability of the Ordinance. Black's Law Dictionary, (Sixth Edition) Centennial Edition (1891-1991), defines "premises" at page 1180 as under: "Premises. In estates and property. Land with its appurtenances and structures thereon. Premises is an elastic and inclusive term, and it does not have one definite and fixed meaning; its meaning is to be determined by its context and may mean a room, shop, building, or any definite area. (Allen v. Gentry, Ala, 97 So.2d 828, 832).
' A dwelling unit and the structure of which it is a part and faculties and appurtenances therein and grounds, areas, and facilities held out for the use of tenants generally or whose use is promised to the tenant. Uniform residential landlord and Tenant Act, 1.301(a)."
6. Premises, thus cannot be considered to be an area or a class of persons or an industry or an establishment to have a continuous applicability of the Ordinance. "Premises" cannot also be misdonstructed as a place wherein whichever person, industry or establishment is housed automatically C attracts the Ordinance. Such misinterpretation will only defeat the express provisions of above-quoted section 1(3) of the Ordinance. The above Notification primarily makes establishments listed in the Schedule subject to the provisions of the Ordinance and not a premises where the establishment is located.
' In my above-noted opinion, I find reinforcement from the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of "Messrs Kwong Fah Chinese Restaurant v. Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution"
(1990 M LD 235), wherein it was held as under: "According to section 1(3) of the Ordinance, it applied to such areas, classes of persons, industries or establishment from such date or dates as the Government may by Notification specify in this behalf. It is, thus, obvious that the Ordinance does not by its own force apply to any establishment or industry but its applicability is dependent upon the issuance of a Notification by the Provincial Government. The Notification dated 21st of October, 1975 relied upon by the respondent reads as under: 'In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Employees'
Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (West Pakistan Ordinance X of 1965) the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to direct that the said Ordinance shall continue to apply to all covered establishments including those found working within the premises of such establishments under any other name, with immediate effect.'
' A reading of the above would show that no establishment stands specified in the Notification that it provides for continuance of operation of the Ordinance to those establishments to which it was already applicable including those working under any other name in the same premises.
' The case of the respondent on the strength of this notification is that previously an establishment under the name of M/s. Kouchi Chinese Restaurant was being run in the same premises to which the Ordinance had been made applicable and as the establishment of the appellant is situated in the same premises it would be covered by the above notification irrespective of the fact whether or not the previous business was owned by the same person. I am, however, not in a position to accept such a wide interpretation of the notification as is being placed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Section 1(3) of the Ordinance makes the issuance of a Notification a condition precedent to the applicability of the Ordinance and it authorises the Government to specify by Notification establishments, industries, areas or classes of persons to whom the provisions of the Ordinance are to apply.
' The Notification relied upon by the respondent provides that the provisions of the Ordinance shall continue to apply to the establishment previously covered by the Ordinance if working in the same premises, even under a different name. Establishment had been defined in section 1(11) of the Ordinance as an organisation whether industrial, commercial agricultural or otherwise. In Ballentine's Law Dictionary (Third Edition) Organization has been defined as a corporation, Government or Governmental Sub-Division or agency, business trust, estate trust, partnership or association two or more persons having a joint or common interest or any other legal or commercial entity. Similar definition appears in Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) at page 991.
Read in the light of above definitions it becomes abundantly clear that the Notification continues to apply, to an establishment so long as the organization i,e, the entity remands the same notwithstanding any change in its nomenclature or business. If, however, the organization itself undergoes a change and becomes different in character or composition, it would not fall within the purview of the Notification in question even though it may be carrying on the same business in the same premises.
7. In view of the above, in absence of Notification under section 1(3) of the Punjab Social Security Ordinance, 1965 specifying petitioner-establishment therein, the said Ordinance cannot be applied to the petitioner. Wherefor Notice/Letter No,SSLE/Cont/83/Circle-A/1080 dated 21-2-1983 issued by the respondents/institute to the petitioner is illegal and without lawful authority. This petition is therefore, accepted. Judgment and decree dated 9-2-1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dismissing petitioner's suit, is also declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect thereby restoring the judgment and decree dated 26-9-1988 passed by learned Civil Judge, Lahore in Suit No,131/1 of 1984 titled "M/s. Paradise Snack Bar through Mr. Nazir Ahmad Butt v.
Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution". There shall, however, be no order as to costs.