DECISION The impugned Award was passed on the 7th of December 1973, by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. II, Karachi, whereby he dismissed the application of the appellant under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance') on two- fold ground namely, (1) that the workman Khan Zaman, whose cause the Union had taken up, was not the employee of the respondent Hotel, aud (2) that the appellant-Union was superseded by another Union and, therefore, the application should have been filed by the General Secretary or the President of the Union that superseded the appellant-Union.
2. I have heard the learned Representatives for the parties at length, Mr. S. P. Lodhi for the appellant-Union and Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed, for the respondent on both the points. I, however, after hearing the Representatives of the parties have decided to dispose of the appeal only on the first issue. On the second point I would only make passing reference as I have heard Mr. Lodhi at great length. Mr. Lodhi has tried to make a distinction between Collective Bargaining Agent, Trade Union and Registered Trade Union. He submitted that under section 25-A a Trade Union could make an application on behalf of individual workman. It appears to be so but it is not necessary to give any decision on this point. As I have come to the conclusion that thel relationship of Master and Servant does not exist between Khan Zaman andU the Hotel United. The most important document on this issue is a letter[ Annexure "A"
(Exh. R-5) at page 51 of the record of the lower Court, dated 7th of May 1972. It is a letter addressed to the Managing Director, Gardenia Snack Bar, Karachi for an advance of Rs. 500. The letter is admittedly in the handwriting of Khan Zaman. On behalf of the appellant it was stated by Mr. Lodhi that it was taken under duress and that this fact was mentioned at the bottom of the application but it has been tom away. After the signature of Khan Zaman the last line is cJ* Therefore, there is no basis for this argument.
3. Mr. Lodhi, however, in this connection laid great emphases on the cash book produced by Mr. Naseem Ahmed. His submission is that there is an alteration and overwriting at page 58 in the total. The question is as to whether the alteration or overwriting in the total makes any difference in the figure of Rs. 500. I have cursorily perused the other pages of the cash book to find out if there is any other overwriting in the total. I find at page 56 that there is an overwriting in the total of the figure. It, therefore, cannot be said that the overwriting is deliberate so as to add Rs. 500. The advance made to the appellant Khan Zaman after the amount of Rs. 500 there are four other amounts and then the total. No reasonable doubt can arise so far as the figure of Rs. 500 is concerned. It is written against Khan Zaman by cash advance. At any rate even if this Register had not been produced the admitted position is that Khan Zaman had taken an advance of Rs. 500 from Gardenia Snack Bar.
4. The next * point that Mr. Lodhi raised in this connection was that Gardenia Snack Bar was also run by the Proprietors of respondent Hotel. The admitted position is that Gardenia Snack Bar belongs to partners of the respondent Hotel who have, however, leased out Gardenia Snack Bar to the present proprietors, that is the lessees, who are three in number. I would hold that the respondent Hotel has nothing to do with the Management of the Gardenia Snack Bar.
5. In the third place Mr. Lodhi in this connection submitted that Khan Zaman was in the service of the respondent Hotel and they utilized the services of Khan Zaman wherever they wanted. It was submitted by Mr. Lodhi, besides Gardenia Snack Bar, the proprietors of the respondent Hotel also owned another concern namely DUREX Laboratories and Khan Zaman worked there in DUREX from 1968 to 1971. On the other hand Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed, the leamed Representative for the respondent Hotel also relied on Exh. R-3 at pages 45 and 47. Exh. R-3 is a receipt for the Financial Year 1968-69 while page 47 is also receipt admittedly signed by Khan Zaman for the financial year 1970--March 1971. Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed relied on these documents to establish that Khan Zaman is telling a lie waen he states that he has been employed by the respondent Hotel since 1966. Exh. R-3 also gives the date of employment of Khan Zaman with DUREX Laboratories as lst of July 1967. I would hold that Khan Zaman was not the employee of the respondent Hotel when his services were terminated. So far as the respondents are concerned they have produced the best evidence they could possibly produce. They examined one of the partners of the respondent Hotel Mr. Zafar Ali. They produced Mr. Naseem Ahmed a partner of Gardenia Snack Bar, who deposed that there were three partners including himself and that Khan Zaman had joined their establishment on the 19th of November 1971. The respondent-Company also produced their Accountant Mr. Ghulam Ahmed Malik. On the other hand, Khan Zaman, though he admitted his signatures on the no-confidence motion passed against himself and the President dated the 3rd of October 1972 (Exh. R-l), page 41 of the record of the lower Court. He admitted the signatures of the Members of the Union on the Exh. R-l and stated that on verification he found that they have signed Exh. R-l under duress and pressure. If it was so it was very easy for Khan Zaman to have produced one of the persons who had signed Exh. R-l.
6. Lastly Mr. Lodhi laid reliance on a letter dated the 15th of March 1972 written by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa. It is at page 33 of the record of the Court, at the time when he was not in the service of the respondent Hotel. In this connection Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed, the learned Representative for the respondent pointed out that the letter and the address on the envelope are in two different handwritings. It may be so. The fact remains that Khan Zaman has not dared to examine Mr. Ghulam Mustafa. The learned Court has rightly relied on Exh.
R-4, counterfoil written by Mr. Khan Zaman.
7. I would, for the reasons given above, dismiss the appeal and maintain the Award of the learned Labour Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.