Pilot Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Union hereinafter referred to as a petitioner-Union filed the under-consideration petition under section 34 through its General Secretary against the Management of Pilot Hotel and Restaurant seeking relief to the effect that the respondent- Management might be restrained from dismissing, discharging, retrenching or otherwise punishing the members of the petitioner-Union in violation of section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The petitioner-Union maintained in its application that it had raised an industrial dispute and communicated the charter of demands to the respondent on 3rd February 1975, and thereafter served a strike notice on the respondent on 14February, 1975. The matter was pending conciliation before the Conciliator but the respondent had been intimidating, harassing still and coercing and asserting undue pressure on the members and office----bearers of the petitioner-Union and he was threatening to terminate and otherwise punish the members of the Union. Hence this application,
3. The proprietor of Pilot Hotel resisted the petition and pleaded sinter cilia that the petitioner-Union was not the C. B. A. and therefore not competent to file this application and that the present petition was vague. The respon--dent also pleaded that no dispute was pending between the Management of Pilot Hotel and the petitioner-Union and as such no right of the petitioner was violated. According to the respondent the application was bad for multifarious-ness. It has also been contended by the respondent that Pilot Restaurant was an independent, separate and distinct establishment owned and run by Malik Mohd. Aslant and the Management of Pilot Hotel had no concern or authority over that establishment:th
4. The parties were asked to lead evidence and address the Court in the first instance in respect of preliminary objections raised by the proprietor of the Pilot Hotel.
5. The petitioner-Union has examined P. W. 1 Muhammad Sarwar, Senior Clerk of the office of the Registrar of Trade Unions. Muhammad Altaf U. D. C. of the office of the Zonal Director, Labour Welfare and P. W. 3 Muhammad Irshad Naseem, General Secretary of the petitioner-----Union.
Muhammad Sarwar stated that the petitioner-Union was registered on 2nd' March 1972, and that on 13March 1975, the petitioner-Union had applied for the grant of C. B. A. Certificate. He admitted that no C. B. A. Certificate had so far been granted to the petitioner-Union. He also stated that in the file there was a letter dated 3rd April 1975, from the Management of the Pilot Hotel. In this letter the Registrar had been informed that Pilot Hotel was independent unit employing only 4 workmen and being managed by Muharram Ali whereas Pilot Restaurant was a separate unit being managed by Muhammad Aslam who has leased the Hall by the Pilot Hotel. Muhammad Altaf brought the conciliation file of the petitioner-Union. He stated that on 3rd June 1972, a settlement was executed between the Union and the Management. Exh. P. 1 is the photo copy of the settlement. This witness admitted that on 18th February 1975 Mr. Muharram Ali stated that Pilot Restaurant was a separate unit owned and managed by Muhammad Aslam. According to this witness conciliation proceedings were still pending. Mr. Muhammad Irshad Naseem, General Secretary of the petitioner-Union stated that there was only one Union in the Pilot Hotel and Restaurant. This Union had now been issued a C. B. A. Certificate on 17th September 1975. According to this witness Pilot Hotel and Restaurant was one and the same unit. It was run by Muharram Ali.
He however stated that some employees worked exclusively in Pilot Hotel and other employees worked exclusively in the Restaurant. He admitted that he served in the Restaurant. He admitted that the Demand Notice was addressed to Muharram Ali Pilot Hotel in envelope Exh. R.
2. This envelope does not bear any mention of the Pilot Restaurant. He admitted that the salaries to the employees serving in the Restaurant were paid by Malik Muhammad Aslam.
6. In rebuttal Malik Muhammad Aslam and Muharram Ali have testified as R. W. 1 and R. W. 2 respectively. Malik Muhammad Aslam stated that he was proprietor of the Pilot Restaurant since 1April 1973. He had obtained the Hall in which the Restaurant was being run on lease till 1981 from Muharrarn Ali. According to him the number of employee in the Restaurant was 12 or 13. The Restaurant was duly registered separately under Shops Establishment Ordinance photocopy of the Certificate is Exh. R. W.
1. The Restaurant was separately assessed to income-tax and Exh. R. W. 1/2 a copy of the order of Income-tax Officer has been produced. Malik Muhammad Aslam has stated that he has nothing to do with the Pilot Hotel which belongs to Muharrarn Ali. According to him the employees of Pilot Hotel could not be transferred to Pilot Restaurant and vice versa. According to him there had never been any dispute between him and his employees. Similar statement has been made by Muharrarn Ali. Agreement of lease Exh. R. W. 2/1 and affidavit Exh. R. W. 2/2 have also been produced. Separate income-tax assessment in respect of Pilot Hotel Exh R. W. 2/3 has also been produced.
7. From the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties it is sufficiently established that Pilot Hotel and Pilot Restaurant are two separate and independent establishments.
Pilot Hotel is owned and managed by Muharrarn Ali whereas Pilot Restaurant is owned and managed by Malik Muhammad Aslam. Pilot Restaurant has actually been leased in March 1973 by Muharram Ali to Malik Muhammad Aslant. It has been held in Workers' Union v. M. B. Hotel United, Karachi (1975 PLC 533) that when an establishment was leased out by proprietor and was being run by the lessee the workmen employed in the Establishment, in the circumstances were not the employees of the proprietor.
8. In this view of the matter it is concluded that in the present case the employees employed in the Restaurant are not the employees of the proprietor of the Pilot Hotel. They are the employees of theth st Pilot Restaurant viz. Malik Muhammad Aslam. In these circumstances the present applica--tion which has been filed by the petitioner-Union against the Management of the Pilot Hotel and Restaurant is misconceived and is not legally competent. It is also noteworthy that when the present application was filed the petitioner----Union was not certified as C. B. A. The petitioner- Union has been certified as C. B. A. about 7 months after the filing of the present petition. The application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can only be filed by a certified C. B. A.
9. In the light of what has been said above the under-consideration application, legally incompetent is dismissed.