MESSRS ASIA HOTEL, RAILWAY STATION, LAHORE Versus ABDUL SHAKOOR
Abdul Shakoor respondent was employed as Watchman in Asia Hotel Railway Station, Lahore. On 11th February 1975 his services were termin ated on the plea that the post of night‑Watchman had been abolished and his services had become surplus. He was however alloyed one, month pay in lieu of notice.
2. On 4th March 1975 Abdul Shakoor filed an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the Management of Asia Hotel viz. the appellant claiming re‑instatement with back benefits. He contended that be was an active participant of the Trade Union activities, the Management disliked it. On many occasions the Management intimidated and coerced the respondent to desist from Trade Union activities but on big refusal to oblige them he was terminated with mala fide intentions. The abolition of post was merely a cloak to do away with the services of the respondent.
3. The appellant resisted the petition and pleaded inter alia that the respondent being a watchman did not fall within the definition of a workman and hence could not file an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On merits the appellant maintained that the allegations about the active participation of the respondent in Trade Union activities and his having been coerced by the Management not to do so was absolutely baseless and false. In fact the post of night watchman had been abolished due to bona fide re‑organisation as there has been occasions of theft of cars. No new watchman had been appointed.
4. As regards the plea of the appellant that the respondent being a watchman was not a workman having no locus standi to file application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the plea was disallowed by the learned Junior Labour Court No. 2 Lahore on 19th May, 1975. The appeal filed by the appellant against the said interim order of the Junior, Labour Court was also dismissed by this Court on dated 20th September, 1975. So far as the merits of the case are concerned Abdul Shakoor respondent appeared as his own witness before the learned lower Court. He also examined Muhammad Din Waiter and Muhammad Sher. Plumber. In rebuttal Mr. M. N. Ahmad. Manager of the Hotel testified on behalf of the appellant. After considering the parties evidence the learned lower Court concluded that the respondent should have been charge‑sheeted and then terminated and that the persons junior to his ware still in service. Con3equently by the order dated 8th January, 1974, the learned Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, accepted the petition of the respondent with full back benefits.
5. The said order dated 8th January, 1974 has been impugned through the present appeal. Admittedly the respondent was a night watchman. The other persons attained in service by the appellant are waiters and thus belong to other categories. The retention of such other persons in service had therefore, nothing to do with the retrenchment of the respondent. There is no evidence on the record to suggest that the appellant was retaining any night watchman or that any such incumbent has been appointed after the termination of the respondent. Re‑organisation of an establishment is the vested right of the Management. There is material on the record to suggest that during the course of employment of the respondent a vehicle belonging to a customer was stolen away. Wheel cups of a vehicle were also stolen away and therefore, the appellant has introduced a system of contract. He has appointed a contractor who charges Re. 2 from the customer who parks vehicles outside the Hotel. It appears on the record that this contract was offered to the respondent but he refused to accept it. So far as the allegations of the respondent that he has been victimized for his Trade Union activities, it has been observed that the respondent while appearing as his own witness has not even been able to tell the name of the Union. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that he was an active member of the Union. No existence of any pocket Union is proved proved from the records.
6. In the light of what has been said above it is concluded that this is a case of retrenchment simpliciter and the appellant could competently do so. No mala fide intention is proved on the part of the appellant. In Employees Union v. Gestetner (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi (1975 P L C 538) it has been held by the Sind Appellate Tribunal that in case of retrenchment mere allegation of mala fide intention without specific proof are not sufficient to plead mala fide. This plea in the circumstances is liable to be rejected.
7. In view of the above it is concluded that the respondent being the only night‑watchman has been retrenched on account of re‑organisation in the establishment. His termination is, therefore, not malicious. In this view of the matter we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application filed by the respondent against the appellant before the learned Lower Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.