KARACHI, Nov 24: The Sindh High Court has directed the Pearl Continental Hotel to file written comments in a suit filed by its former employee, Sabir Mahmood Bhatti, for the recovery of salary, emoluments, benefits, etc. and damages amounting to Rs6,7406,47.

In December 1968, the plaintiff was engaged in the defendant’s service as typist-cum-storekeeper. In December 1991, he was engaged in clerical work and at that time he was also holding the post of the general secretary of the Employees Union. Additionally, he was also councillor of the CBA, in which capacity a settlement dated April 28, 1991 was executed between the management of the defendant and the CBA.

The plaintiff, represented by Nasir Maqsood, has claimed in the suit that after that settlement the defendant allegedly started victimization of the office-bearers and representatives of the Union and removed them from service, namely, (i) Naseer, (ii) Bashir and (iii) Mohammed Ishaq, office-bearers of the CBA.

On December 24, 1991, the defendant designated/promoted the plaintiff from the post of inventory controller to assistant purchase manager.

On February 2, 1992 the service of the plaintiff was terminated by the defendant saying that “Your services are no longer required.” The defendant, in reply, stated that the services of the plaintiff had become surplus and redundant. The plaintiff claimed that the reasoning was incorrect as the defendant appointed Rehan Mohasin assistant purchase manager after the termination of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, consequently, served a grievance notice on the defendant which was replied on February 22, 1992 stating therein that the plaintiff was not a workman and that he was discharged from supervisory functions on February 2, 1992. Being dissatisfied with a notice the plaintiff filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, with the Sindh Labour Court-II at Karachi.

The defendant resisted the petition by filing a written statement mainly on the ground that the plaintiff was not a workman. The parties pleaded evidence in support of their respective contentions. The arguments were concluded.

The IInd Sindh Labour Court at Karachi allowed the petition by an order dated March 6,1997, holding that the plaintiff was a workman and the termination letter did not give any explicit reasons, hence there was violation of the Standing Order 12 (3) of the Standing Order Ordinance of 1968. The plaintiff was directed to be reinstated with back benefits.

Then the defendant preferred appeal before the chairman of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi. The chairman accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the IInd Sindh Labour Court by his judgment dated May 19, 1997.

The aggrieved plaintiff filed a constitutional petition bearing CP No D-1228 of 1997 with the Sindh High Court. The division bench which heard the petition held that “the decision of the chairman of the Labour Appellate Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant interference in this jurisdiction, this constitutional petition is hereby dismissed.”

The plaintiff challenged the impugned judgment of the division bench in the Supreme Court. The apex court dismissed the petition and leave to appeal was refused.

The plaintiff stated in his grievance petition before the IInd Sindh Labour Court that he was a workman and his services could not be terminated by the defendant. The contention found favour by the Sindh Labour Court. However, the Appellate Tribunal, as well as the division bench of the High Court of Sindh, held otherwise. This was maintained by the Supreme Court.

His prayer also included quashment and setting aside of the impugned termination letter and direction to the defendant to pay salary, benefits, and emoluments amounting to Rs6,740,647.