1976 PLP 787 (PLC(CS))

This is an appeal against an order dated 31st July 1974, passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Lyallpur, whereby it was held that the appellant was not employee of the respondent and as such he was not entitled to receive any wages from the respondent. Briefly the facts are these:

The respondent, Malik Abdul Ghani is the proprietor of Pakistan Hotel, Chiniot Bazar Lyallpur. The concern appears to be a very small one. It had four employees only, namely, a clerk, one cook, one waiter and one sweeper. The appellant claimed, in the first instance that he was an employee of the said hotel and was dismissed from service. On these allega tions he filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for his re-instatement. This application was decided on 5th December 1973. And after taking ex parte proceedings, he was ordered to be re-instated. The proprietor of the hotel filed an appeal. It was also decided ex pane. In appeal it was held that the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 does not apply and so appeal was accepted. The appellant filed an application under section 35 of the Payment of Wages Act, alleging that the proprietor of the hotel had not paid wages for 5 months. Respondent pleaded that the appellant was never his employee. The Authority came to the conclusion that the appellant was not employee and so his application was dismissed. He has come up in appeal. The only question which needs determination in this appeal is whether the appellant was an employee of the respondent. In this connection the appellant examined three witnesses. He himself appeared as P.W.1. He said that he was an employee and had to receive his wages for 5 months He did not give the total duration of his employment. He was unable to give names of any other employee who had working during his own employ ment. His second witness is Riaz Ahmed (P. W. 2) been. He could not tell as to who was proprietor of the hotel. He did not know respondent. He could not tell to which site the hotel was situated. The third witness is Muhammad Zaman. He could neither tell the name of the hotel nor the name of its proprietor. The lower Court was justified to disbelieve the above evidence. It is apparent that there must be a cook and waiter in the hotel. If the appellant bad been working there, he must be in a position to tell the names of the other employees. His witnesses are not even in a position to tell the name of the proprietor. The finding of the lower Court is accordingly con firmed. The appeal has not merit and the same is hereby dismissed.