1999 PLP 406 (PLC)

Supervision and guidance to kitchen staff in preparation of dishes. Supervise quantity and quality of stores bought for maintaining quality of dishes produced. Providing accurate information to costing departments for efficient cost control. To ensure maintenance of kitchen equipment in good working orders. To maintain cleanliness and hygiene in the kitchen. To supervise dining arrangements in club and at members residences in case of outdoor parties. Ensure proper upkeep of crockery, cutlery and table appointments to minimize breakages and losses. Ensure efficient service and attend to members for this catering requirements for booking tables, parties and others. Administration of kitchen, dining room and others allied staff and allocations of duties. Supervise cleanliness of club in general and dining areas in particulars. Any other duties assigned by the Secretary as found necessary for club's services. (Sd.) 14‑6‑1995 (Sd) Major Hasan Abbas (Retd.), Secretary. The Job Description reproduced above appears to have been signed by the appellant with a date put on as 4‑6-1995 the proximity of the time is noticeable: as the appellant assumed charge on 1‑6‑1995. The appellant however, has denied his signature thereon. Learned counsel for the respondent refers para. 21 of the appellant's statement wherein it was stated by him that "I was given my Job Description by the Catering Manager Having admitted that the Job Description was given by the Catering Manager. He could have produced the said Job Description if it was other than Exh.R.2 which he did not. Moreover, first part of paragraph 10 of the affidavit‑in‑evidence of the appellant relating to his nature of duties, if compared with the Job Description Exh.R.2, it is more or less the same. In fact the phraseology used in para.10 of the said affidavit and the Job Description is similar to a great extent. The description of duties of the appellant was managerial and supervisory in nature. Reference may be made to the cross‑examination of the appellant wherein he admitted by replying 'it is correct that on my approval the payment was made to the supplier" (of eatables in the kitchen). "It is correct that I used to authorise withdrawal of 'Clearing Stores' from the Stores". Although on a suggestion given to him by the counsel for the respondent in cross‑examination that. "The provision Stores were withdrawn from the Stores on his authority but he admitted the "on being cofronted with Exh.A/1 to A/8 he admitted that "those Stores were duly signed by him". (Exhs.A/1 to A/8 seem to be internal Indents o Provision Stores for the kitchen).

8. In order to show the manual labour, the appellant in the last paragraph mentioned list of 21 dishes at the end of paragraph 10 of the affidavit‑in‑evidence to have been prepared/introduced by him. The statement as contained in above said paragraph 10 has been rebutted by the respondent Secretary in his affidavit‑in‑evidence wherein it was stated that most of the said dishes were already in vogue in the Club. Only two new dishes were prepared by the appellant but these too with the association and collaboration of the Catering Manager as is apparent from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Club Exhs.R.3, R.4 and R.5. Reference may be made to paragraph 4 of the said Minutes of Meeting. It is significant to note that the Secretary of the Club (who appeared as a witness of the respondents was not cross‑examined on these points). So, the assertions made in the affidavit of the Secretary of the Club gone un-rebutted. I am, therefore, clear in my mind that finding on Issue No.1 of the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No.V, Karachi is based on facts on ‑record. I, therefore, agree with the learned Presiding Officer that the appellant was not a workman.

9. As regards Issue No.2 the learned Presiding Officer held that the application was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Although none of the parties argued on the point, I do not think proper to leave it untouched. For the sake of future guidance of the learned Labour Courts' reference may be made to section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with‑ particular reference to the proviso to said section. It will be beneficial to reproduce the said section. "

6. Suits by and against societies.‑‑‑Every society registered under this Act may sue or be sued in the name of the president, chairman, or principal secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society, and in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body or the occasion: Provided it shall be competent for any person having a claim or demand against the society, to sue the president or chairman; or principal secretary or the trustees thereof, if on application to the governing body some other officer or person be not nominated to be the defendant. In view of the above proviso the suit shall be competent for any person having a claim or demand against the society, to sue the president or chairman, or principal secretary or the trustees thereof. To my querry from the respondent's counsel if there was any Rule in the Rules and Regulations of the Society naming of person by the Governing body to sue or be sued, he pleaded his ignorance. The finding on Issue No.2 is, thus, reversed. In view of my finding on Issue No.l certainly the appellant is not entitled to reinstatement in service. The application was wrongly held to be not maintainable on that score. He is, however, entitled to the Notice pay for one month which was offered to the appellant but was refused by him. Mr.M . Latif Saghar at this stage stands up and requests that the respondent may be ordered to pay all other benefits arising out of termination. Mr, Asad Abbas Zaidi undertakes to calculate the said benefits according to law and send the same to the appellant within 21 days. Orders accordingly. Announced in open Court this 11th day of February, 1999. H.B.T./314/K/Lab. (Trib.) Order accordingly