JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the award dated 9-8-1974 of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore,
2. The facts of the case are that kitchen of the New Kamran Hotel was running at a loss. On 31-1-1973 the Management of the New Kamran Hotel suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 17,637 for the period from 1-10-1971 to 31-3-1973. The Management thereafter introduced a re-organisation scheme whereby it was decided to lease out the kitchen on contract basis. A meeting of the representatives of the Union was called for discussion. The Management offered the workers free use of the kitchen building, utensils, crockery, cutlery, free supply of electricity and water and gas in return for a reasonable commission to the company of the sale of food. The workers refused the offer on the ground that they would lose their status as workmen. After that the Management decided to lease out the kitchen on contract basis and received offers from different persons for operating the kitchen on contract basis. Thereupon the Management on 1-9-1973 served notice Exh. P-5 on Nawaz Khan, President of the Union, and five others intimating that their services would be terminated on 30-9-1973. It was mentioned in that notice that due to various reasons appropriate Management and supervision of the kitchen of New Kamran Hotel had gone beyond control and on account of recurring losses it had become impossible for Kamran Company to run it. On 4-9-1973 the General Secretary of the Kamran Hotel Employees' Union, Rawalpindi, sent notice to the Management under section 26(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, demanding that the notice for the termination of services of aforementioned employees be withdrawn. No negotiations between the parties took place and the Union then served strike notice Exh. P-3 on the Management. A copy of that notice was also sent to the conciliator. After a number of meetings settlement Exh. P-4 was arrived at between the parties. It reads as follows:-- "The employer will stay action on the notice of discharge dated 1-9-1973 served on employees and in the meantime the Union will approach the Punjab Labour Court (Central Zone), Lahore, within 15 days seeking direction for withdrawal of said notice of discharge. The decision of the Labour Court will be binding on the parties." On 9-10-1973 Kamran Hotel Employees' Union through its General Secretary, respondent, filed a petition under section 32(I-A), for the adjudication of aforesaid demand before the Labour Court, wherein it was alleged that the termination order was mala fide. The Labour Court vide award dated 9-8-74 accepted the petition and directed the Kamran Company, appellant, to withdraw the notice forthwith.
3. Aggrieved by this award the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
4. The learned Representative of the respondent raised a preliminary objection that since the Labour Court was appointed arbitrator during the conciliation proceedings, the award given by the arbitrator was final and no appeal lay against it as it is laid down under section 31 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969,
5. Ffom the perusal of the record I find that the respondent had moved the Labour Court under section 32(1-A) of the Ordinance, which shows that the Labour Court was not appointed arbitrator under section 31, because section 32 only comes into operation when conciliation proceedings fail and the parties do not agree to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. In view of the above the preliminary objection has no force.
6. The learned Representative of the respondent in the alternative contended that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the instant appeal was not competent as the award of the Labour Court was binding on the parties.
7. It is well established principle of law that there is no estoppel against law because an award of Labour Court is always appealable. The parties by entering into an agreement cannot take away the right of appeal which is, guaranteed or secured under the statute. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Ikram Bus Service and others v. Board of Revenue, West Pukistan and 2 others (1). In view of the above this contention of the Representative of the respondent has also no force.
8. On merits the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the action of the Management in issuing the notice for terminating the services of the employees was bona fide and strictly in accordance with law, whereas the learned Representative of the respondent contended that the action of the Management in issuing the aforementioned notice was illegal, unjust, improper and had been adopted to victimize the workers for their Trade Union activities. 9. * The learned Labour Court made the following observations:-- "Now we proceed on to see whether the reason given in the notice i.e. loss in business is genuine and can be made the basis for termination. It is to be noted that the kitchen had no separate entity and is an essential part and parcel of the hotel itself. The mere fact that the kitchen incurred loss of Rs. 17,637 during a certain period as alleged by R. W. 1 is no ground for terminating the services of the kitchen employees because the losses suffered or profits earned by an establishment can be determined on consideration of the profit and loss statement of the establishment as a whole and not on the basis of a statement relating to a particular section of department of the establishment. It is to be noted that the Management does not intend to close down the kitchen but wants to run it through a contractor." According to S. O. No. l2 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the reason for terminating the services of an employee has to be explicitly mentioned. In the present case the notice Exh. P-5 clearly mentions the reason for terminating the services of employees. Therefore the notice was in strict compliance with S O. No. l2 of the aforementioned Ordinance. Further I find that in the order of the Income-tax Officer, Circle 1, Rawalpindi, for Income- tax Return ending on 30-9-70, kitchen was treated as a separate entity from the hotel itself and was assessed under an independent head. In any case in the hotel now-a-days food is not included in the rent of the room. It is not obligatory for the residents of the hotel to take food from the restaurant attached to a hotel. The restaurant caters for non-residents. Hence it is a separate entity. (l)PLD 1963 SC 564 10. The evidence produced by the appellant that kitchen was running at a loss has not been rebutted.
11. In the result I accept the appeal, set aside the award of the Labour Court and dismiss the petition filed by the respondent under section 32(I-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.