1997 PLP 718 (PLC(CS))

These are two connected appeals arising from the order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petitions of two hotel employees for reinstatement and back benefits were dismissed.

2. This is a strange case in which no one comes forward to claim ownership of a running hotel, only to escape the liability under the Labour laws.

3. The facts are that Paradise Cinema situated at Abdullah Haroon Road (Victoria Road) was sold by its Proprietor Mr. Mobed He sold it to a new owner. The new owner built a Shopping Centre on the ground and the first floor and later on built, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors also. The name of the ground‑floor was Paradise Shopping Centre and the remaining sixth floors built for a hotel were named Paradise Hotel. The hotel started working from the year 1991.

4. Appellant Syed Zaheer Chishty was appointed as Cashier in the hotel from 24th August, 1991. Appellant Ahmed Ramzan Cook was appointed from 1‑2‑1991. The name of the proprietor of the hotel was secret and till this day it has remained secret. The Managing Director of the hotel was one Mr. Hamid and Ausaf Saleem was the Assistant Food and Beverage Manager. The appellants were not given any appointment orders by the Paradise Hotel. Mr. Ausaf Saleem has stated that no salary was being paid by the hotel to the employees but they got free meals, tea and uniform only. This is the surprising part of the management. The services of Cashier were terminated in March, 1992 and of the Cook on 18th February, 1992. This was done orally without any order in writing and without any reasons in writing as required by the Standing Orders Ordinance under Order

12. The discharged employees gave notice to the management and filed grievance petitions under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., before Labour Court No.

5. The Labour Court after recording evidence found that the appellant employees could not establish from any written documents that they were the employees of this hotel. The learned Labour Court therefore held that there was no relationship of employer and employee established from any evidence, and since the burden was on the employees' petitioners, the petitions had to be dismissed.

5. The fictitious management of the hotel defended the case by stating that the Paradise Hotel was the name of the upper portion of the building but the portion housing the hotel was let out on rent to M/s. Ocean Arabian (Pvt.) Limited. They were the proprietors of the hotel business and the employees were controlled by them. That they left the building on 16th August, 1992 and thereafter the owners of the building started management of the hotel themselves and they are running the hotel uptil now.

6. The claim of the Paradise Hotel that initially the building was rented out to Ocean Arabian (Pvt.) Limited has .not been established by production of any Lease Agreement or any other contract or document nor has it been shown by a production of Excise and Taxation Receipts. Income Tax bills etc. that they were not the real proprietors of the hotel. It, therefore, appears that this was merely a method to escape liability under the I.R.O. and the Standing Orders. In any case if they were not the proprietors, the burden was on them to prove the same by 1production of the Lease Agreement but even no such document has been mentioned or produced.

7. It has also not been denied that the appellants were the employees working in Paradise Hotel. It is hard to believe that the Cashier and the Cook would be employed in this hotel without any salary. I am, therefore, inclined to believe the story related by the workers that they were not given any appointment orders on purpose nor were they given any ticket or other papers to establish that they were the employees of the hotel. It also appears to be true that these appellants were later on discharged orally because they started union activities.

8. The main point in this appeal is whether the termination of their service was done orally without an order in writing. This has not been denied in several words and it appears to be correct fact that the termination was illegal.

9. A party cannot be allowed to act in hush manner by concealing the ownership just to escape pecuniary liability incurred by them under the labour laws. They cannot be allowed to reap the benefit of their own wrong doing. According to respondents, Mr. Hamid was Director of the building and not the Hotel, though he continues to manage the hotel.

10. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside. The termination being against Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders is declared to be illegal. The appellants are directed to be reinstated in service by Hotel Paradise within 15 days from the date of this order.

11. The appeals are allowed in terms of this order. No back benefits are allowed because it has not been established in evidence that the appellants were not gainfully employed during the period of four years they remained out of job. The appellants were also guilty of contributory negligence for not insisting on their rights and not obtaining written appointment orders. H.B.T./208/Lb.S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals allowed.