LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that the Employees’ Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) cannot resort to its alternative contribution assessment mechanism without first undertaking the verification procedure.
Justice Jawad Hassan passed a judgement, allowing a writ petition filed by Security Organising System Pakistan (Private) Limited and setting aside both a 2018 decision of the EOBI Adjudicating Authority, Lahore, and a 2019 order of the EOBI Appellate Board, Faisalabad, that had gone against the company.
The petitioner company, which provides services to banks and commercial institutions and is registered with EOBI under Section 11 of the Act, began operations in Dera Ghazi Khan in July 2013 and said it had regularly paid its monthly contributions.
However, EOBI issued a demand notice on May 14, 2015, under Section 12(3) of the Act, seeking an additional amount, followed by a show-cause notice under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.
The company’s challenge before the EOBI Adjudicating Authority was dismissed in 2018, primarily due to its absence from proceedings, and its subsequent appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Board in 2019.
A counsel for the petitioner-company argued that EOBI had proceeded directly under Section 12(3) — which allows the Institution to assess contributions based on available evidence where an employer has failed to maintain records or comply with Section 12(1) — without first carrying out the inspection and verification process set out in Section 12(1) itself.
Justice Hassan held that Section 12(3) is not an unregulated or unfettered power that EOBI may invoke simply because it considers an amount to be payable.
Rather, he said, its use is expressly conditioned on the employer having first failed to maintain records, submit returns, or otherwise comply with Section 12(1) — a failure that must actually make it difficult to ascertain the insured persons or the contribution due.
The judge set aside both impugned decisions and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision.
MPO sections challenged
A constitutional petition has been filed before the Lahore High Court (LHC), challenging sections 3 and 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance for being, what it says, inconsistent with fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Abdullah Malik, a lawyer and activist, filed it through advocate Azhar Siddique, pleading that the law does not provide clear and effective safeguards against deprivation of personal liberty. The petition contends that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for the criminal justice system and that the liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed without evidence and reasonable grounds.
It also challenges the scope of restrictions imposed under Section 16, particularly in relation to freedom of expression.
The petition assails the legal standards governing terms such as “fear or alarm” and activities considered prejudicial to public order. It seeks protection of citizens’ constitutional rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement and freedom of expression.
The petition argues that powers of preventive detention must be exercised according to clear, objective and evidence-based criteria and remain subject to effective judicial oversight and legal safeguards.
It further contends that indefinite restrictions on fundamental rights in the name of preventive detention are subject to constitutional scrutiny. It asks the court to examine the constitutional validity of the impugned MPO provisions and limit their application in accordance with constitutional safeguards and fundamental rights.
Published in Dawn, October 2nd, 2026
