2016 PLP 218 (PLC)

ALI SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER.

The appellant has challenged order dated 1st March 2013 of the Sindh Labour Court No.V, Karachi, dismissing his application No. 26/2005 for reinstatement in service.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant, a barman, was dismissed from service on 9th March 2005 on proof of charges of misconduct in an enquiry. On 16th January 2005, the appellant served unhygienic drinking water in an unsealed bottle instead of sealed bottle of mineral water ordered by a guest and served orange juice mixed with water to another guest. Prior to that 05 letters of warning were given to him on different dates for his repeated acts of misconduct, including mixing of cockroaches in hot tea water to the great annoyance of the client and his 250 guests, resulting into cancellation of the party and refusal to pay the bill amounting to Rs.107,812/-. The appellant admitted to have received the warning letter and admitted to have apologized in writing for his negligence adding that his intention was not to cause loss or damage to reputation of the hotel.

3. The appellant failed to cross-examine respondent's witnesses for many years. Affidavit of Abdul Sattar (Manager Personnel and Administration) and Iftikhar Ali Khan (Enquiry Officer) were filed on 15th February 2006. Abdul Sattar left service and in his place affidavit of his successor Muhammad Farooq was filed in August 2008 who also left the job after sometime' and affidavit of his successor Daniyal Aleeem Siddique was filed in July 2010. Ultimately, the Labour Court was constrained to close cross of the witnesses is on 2nd April 2012.

4. On 18th December 1999, the appellant was warned for sitting and eating in the restaurant during duty hours. On 26th June 2000 he was warned for remaining absent without intimation for 03 days and on 23rd September 2000 he was warned for sitting and wasting time in non smoking area in Jharoka Restaurant. On 24th October 2000, he was warned for remaining absent without intimation and on 23rd May 2002 he was warned for mixing cockroaches in hot tea water for service to a party of 250 person. In his written application dated 17.11.2003, he admitted his negligence and stated that it was unintentional due to rush of work without intention of causing loss or damage to the hotel.

5. There is no force in the argument of the appellant's counsel that the respondent, by not producing the guests and the Restaurant Manager Imtiaz Shaikh, failed to prove the charge against the appellant. No guest would like to involve himself to the extent of giving evidence against a barman for his unsatisfactory service. Normally, the guests don't make complaints. If they are not satisfied with the service, they simply refrain from coming again. The Manager could not be examined due to leaving the job. However, the respondent examined its Assistant Restaurant Manager Naumanuddin Khurram in whose presence the guests had complained against the appellant. He further stated that the appellant, instead of giving any explanation, misbehaved with the manager when the latter informed him about the complaint.

6. The business of hotel largely depends upon the quality of service rendered to the guests. A barman plays an important role in the business. His punctuality, courtesy, etiquettes and cleanliness are of significant importance. The conduct of the appellant has all along remained improper and unbecoming of a barman. The respondent, who suffered a lot due to the persistent indifferent and careless conduct of the appellant, cannot be made to suffer and tolerate him further. There is always limit of everything.

7. In such circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order of the Labour Court refusing to reinstate the appellant in service. Accordingly, the appeal, being meritless, is dismissed. HBT/30/SLT Appeal dismissed.