Please refer to the subject noted above and find enclosed herewith following judgments of the Sindh High Court Karachi:-

          I.       Hashoo Steel Industries Ltd. vs. BOT, EOBI & others.

          II.      Attock Cement Pakistan Company vs. BOT, EOBI & others.

 2.       The honorable Sindh High Court in its decision reported as 2004-PLC-121 dated 29.04.2003 following its earlier decision in C.P.No.363 dated 30.03.2002 and the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Consolidated Sugar Mills vs. Employees Social Security Institution (1989-SCMR-888) has held that “a person employed through a contractor being covered by defining provisons of expressions “employee” and “employer” under Ss. 2(bb) and 2(c) of Employees’ Old-age Bnefits Act, 1976, charging section 9 of the act would apply to such persons also”.

 3.       Rejecting the arguments that Supreme Court’s decision reported as 1989-SCMR-888 relied by the honorable High Court was not applicable as the same was passed in connection with Social Security Ordinance 1965, the honorable court observed that “Indeed we are conscious of the well-settled principle that definition of an expression contained in one statute cannot be imported into another unless two statutes arte in pari-materia. This principle however, does not appear to be attracted in the present case as no question of borrowing definitions from another statute is involved and both the statutes define certain expressions independently which appear to have the same effect.  At the same time it is difficult to subscribe to the view that they are not in pari-materia inasmuch as both of them are intended to provide certain benefits to low paid employees and cast certain obligations upon employers to make contributions for the purposes of such benefits.”

 4.       Rejecting the contracts purporting to shift the liability of payment of EOBI contribution, the honorable court categorically observed that “Indeed once the statutory liability of petitioners is established, no contract to the contrary can be pleaded in defence”.

 5.       The superior courts have persistently followed above principle in a series of cases including Crescent Textile Mills vs. EOBI Board of Trustees reported as PLJ2000-LHR-1212 has also followed the same in the following cases:

          I.       1989PLC-81 (SESSI Vs. Pakistan National Produce Co. Limited)

          II.      1990PLC-6    (SESSI vs. Premier Tobacco Ind. Limited)

         III.      1993PLC-1984 (Okara Flour & General Mills vs. PESSI)

         III.      1999PLC-210  (SESSI vs. Modern Textile Mills Limited).

 

 

                                                                                     (Muhammad Shafi Malik)

                                                                                                  Chairman

All Zonal Heads.

DDG(B&C) for record and necessary action.

ADG/DD, Law Department for record and necessary action.