1996 PLP 186 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S.Os. 12 & 13‑‑‑Termination of services‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑Services of employee working as Kitchen and Beverage Coordinator in Hotel were terminated on ground of "re‑organisation"‑‑‑No evidence of any re‑organisation or losses or necessity for retrenchment had been shown by the employer‑‑ Three more persons with same designation who were junior to employee were retained in service in contravention of S.O. 13 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑‑A Five Star Hotel like employer, would not dismiss a servant having ten years standing just for the sake of re‑organisation when employee could have been assigned some other duties if post of Kitchen and Beverage Coordinator was abolished‑‑‑Plea of re‑organisation, thus did not appear to be genuine and termination of employee on that ground was without any cogent reason and appeared to be mala fide‑‑‑Order of termination passed by Court below against employee was set aside and he was directed to be re‑instated with full back benefits. M. Latif Saghar for Appellant. Muhammad Humayun for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th September, 1995. This is worker's appeal against Pearl Intercontinental Hotel management since his petition before the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, for re‑instatement has been rejected.

2. The appellant was appointed by the Hotel Management as Kitchen Controller on 20th January, 1981 on a salary of Rs:1,100 per month. He completed his three months' period of probation and became a permanent workman. He had to perform all the duties and carry out all the orders of the management. On 5‑11‑1991 after about 10 years he was re-designated as Food and Beverage Coordinator and the post of Kitchen Controller was abolished. His pay was increased and he was given total emoluments of Rs.3,906 but after four months on 16‑3‑1992 his services were terminated by order in writing for the reasons given as re‑organisation".

3. It is the case of the learned Advocate for the appellant that although the designation was changed his duties remained the same.. He continued to carry out the orders of the management. No one was working under him. That he insisted on observing Taraveeh prayers and regular prayers and joined the union and on account of union activities his services were terminated.

4. Mr. Humayun on behalf of the Hotel Inter-continental has on the other hand argued that the appellant was not a worker but he was an officer in Hotel Intercontinental drawing basic salary of Rs.2,

370. That the reason for his termination was abolition of the post due to re‑organisation. S. A Kitchen and Beverage Coordinator is not supposed to be an officer in a Five Star Hotel like the Intercontinental on the meagre salary of Rs.2,

370. He had to obey his officers while nobody obeyed him as an officer. His nature of duties does not show that his duties were of managerial or supervisory nature. He was, therefore, a worker within the meaning of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

6. The services of the appellant were terminated under Order 12(3) but the explicit reasons for the termination were not mentioned. If there was re -organisation, no evidence of any re‑organisation or losses or necessity for retrenchment has been shown. On the other hand in contravention of Order 13, three more persons with the same designation junior to him were retained in service. A Five Star Hotel would not dismiss a servant having 10 years standing just for the sake of re‑organisation when he could have been assigned any other duties if the post of Kitchen and Beverage Co‑ordinator was abolished, but there is no evidence of such retrenchment, therefore, the excuse of re‑organisation does not appear to be genuine and the termination is without any cogent reason, and therefore, appears to be mala fide.

7. In the result the order of the Labour Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant may be re‑instated in service within 30 days of this order. Since the appellant has shown that he was not gainfully employed and was jobless during the entire period he remained out of service he is allowed full back benefits. H.B.T./2511/Lb.S Appeal allowed.