1997 PLP 572 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment ,(Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Services of employee who initially was appointed as 'waiter' in employer hotel and then was promoted as 'Outlet Manager' were terminated on ground of re‑organization‑‑‑No resolution had been produced on record on part of employer that Hotel wherein employee was working had re -organised management and had abolished one post of Outlet Manager‑‑ Labour Court, in circumstances, had rightly concludC‑0‑ that it was merely an excuse to get rid of employee as no re‑organisation was in employer hotel. Muhammad Humayun for Appellants. M. Latif Saghar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th August, 1996. This appeal is directed against the order of 5th Sindh Labour Court, Karachi allowing the grievance petition of respondent Akber Ali directing his reinstatement with full back benefits.

2. The facts in brief are that Akber Ali was a permanent workman of Pearl Continental Hotel, Karachi since 1‑8‑1969. He worked in various capacities as Waiter etc; and ultimately he was promoted as Outlet Manager. He was drawing a pay of Rs.3,000 per month. His job was to receive the guests at wedding and other such functions to count their number and to communicate the number of guests to the Accounts Department for preparation of the bill. The services of the respondent were first terminated on 24‑3‑1991 on the ground that they were no longer required. He preferred a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. before Labour Court and he was reinstated in service without back benefits. The employers filed appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed and they went before the High Court in Constitution petition. By that time the reinstated worker Akber Ali's service was again terminated on the ground of re‑organisation. The Constitution petition in the High Court was, therefore, withdrawn. Against the second termination the worker filed his grievance petition before the Sindh Labour Court No. 5, Karachi and it was held that the respondent was a workman. His application was therefore maintainable and the reason of re‑organisation was bogus and mala fide. Applicant was, therefore, reinstated in service with all the back benefits. Against this order the hotel management preferred this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel for the hotel management has again argued that the respondent as a Outlet Manager is an officer and not a workman and he was removed front service for the reason of re‑organisation because the post of Outlet Manager was abolished.

4. The question of the respondent being a workman was already considered in the previous appeal and need not have been repeated all over again. The respondent had entered service as a waiter and at the time of termination on 19‑9‑1992 he was designated as Outlet Manager for a salary of Rs.3,000 and his job was to work sometimes as a waiter when there was A no function but if there was a wedding or other functions to count the,, number of guests and report the number to the Accounts Department. His job was not that of any Manager or Supervisor or involving duties of managerial nature. I, therefore, again hold that the respondent was a workman and not an officer in Five Star Hotel belonging to the chain of hotels called Pearl Continental throughout the world.

5. The next point is regarding re‑organisation. Now it is being argued that the post of Outlet Manager was abolished but no such resolution has been produced on the record that Hotel Intercontinental re‑organised the management and abolished one post of Outlet Manager because it was g superfluous. Hotel Intercontinental can employ ten such Managers for all these Restaurants and Departments in the hotel in Karachi or elsewhere. They cannot waste their time by convening a meeting of the Board and passing a resolution to get rid of an employee drawing Rs.3,000 as salary. I, therefore, agree with the learned Labour Court that this is merely an excuse to get rid of this worker. There is no such thing as re‑organization/abolishing the post.

6. For the reasons discussed above, the order of the Labour Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. The back benefits deposited may be paid to the respondent after thirty days. H.B.T./172/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.