Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday issued notices to federal and Sindh governments in the petition that seeks payment of old-age entitlements and benefits and establishment of Sindh Employees Old Age Benefits Institution (SEOBI), respectively.
A two-member bench of the SHC headed by Justice Aziz-ur-Rahman ordered federal and provincial governments to submit their comments on May 09 after ten petitioners moved SHC against non-entertaining of benefits claims by EOBI at the federal level. Federal Government through Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Development and EOBI and Sindh government have been directly made respondents in the petition.
Petitioners also requested the court to direct Sindh government to establish SEOBI.
The petition, filed by Barrister Muhammad Asad Ashfaq stated that 18th constitutional amendment altered the constitutional scheme of labour laws, affecting the claims of pensions, grants and allowances for insured employees. He submitted before the court that petitioners' statutory rights are being violated under EOBI Act 1976 and SEOBI Act 2014.
Pursuant to enactment of 18th amendment, all the matters that fell under the concurrent legislative list stood devolved to the provinces and fall within the domain of provincial assemblies to legislate upon, he stated, adding that after devolution of powers, Sindh Assembly passed SEOBI 2014, thus SEOBI Act 2014 came into force throughout the province, thus Sindh government was mandated to establish SEOBI that, however, has not yet been formed.
The counsel submitted that all the petitioners are insured employees for the purpose of old-age benefits and grants who had been employed with different establishments and their due contributions were regularly and timely made to EOBI.
The petitioners have claimed various benefits such as old-age pension, grants and survivor grant, which they are entitled under EOBI Act 1976. However, the claims are pending to date and decision is being delayed on one or the other pretext, they stated in the petition.
When EOBI was approached for these benefits, it asked the petitioners to approach SEOBI for these benefits but SEOBI has not been formed so far.
The counsel argued that EOBI is bound to decide the benefits' claims and its failure to do so amounts to usurping the contributions made by the petitioners.
He contended that depriving the petitioners of their due entitlements are violation of their statutory and constitutional rights and prayed the court to declare acts and inactions of EOBI as ultra vires of constitution and in breach of statutory and fundamental rights of the petitioners.
Comments
Comments are closed.