LHC asked to settle social security funds cases

Petition says Pessi is responsible to provide workers benefits in certain events

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has asked the Lahore High Court to decide within two weeks all applications related to suspension of operations of the notifications issued by the Punjab Government regarding social security contribution by employers to the benefit of workers.

The two judge bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial has also asked the LHC to pass a reasoned order after hearing the parties.

During the hearing on Monday, advocate Raheel Kamran Sheikh appeared on behalf of Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Pessi) against a stay order from the LHC over non-receipt of social security fund by industries in the province meant for workers’ welfare.



According to the petition, Pessi was established under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 and has been operational since March 1, 1967 for providing benefits to employees or their dependents in the event of sickness, maternity, employment injury, or death.

The petition says that the institution is also responsible for the medical care of dependents, injury benefits, disablement pensions and gratuity, survivor’s pension, death grant and medical care in case of employment injury, etc. It is also providing health care facilities and cash benefits to its secured workers and their dependents employed in industrial and/or commercial establishments operating in Punjab.

Moreover, it says that Section 20 of the 1965 Ordinance (as amended till date through the Punjab Amendment Act XXIV of 2013) sets the rate of contribution to be paid by the employer. It provides that every employer shall, in respect of every employee, whether employed by him directly or through any other person pay to the institution “at such times at not more than six percent” subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.



Section 71 of the ordinance, according to the petition, pertains to review and modify wage structures, vests in the government the power to modify the wage limits. Similarly, the government may, after considering the said report and considerations, by notification, to enhance or reduce the wage limits specified in clause (f) of sub-section (8) of Section 2 or the rates of benefits payable under the Ordinance.

On December 21, 2007, the LHC judge in chamber granted interim relief to the respondents. Later, the petitioner approached the judge in chambers with an application for vacation of the ad-interim injunction.

The said application was heard on February 28 last year, but the request for the vacation of stay order was not entertained. The petitioner had also requested the SC to set aside the LHC’s February 28 stay order.