COSMOPOLITAN CLUB Vs. DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Cosmopolitan Club, Madras, is the petitioner. The respondent, the District Employment Officer, wrote to the petitioner-club on 23 March 1953, a letter drawing attention to an earlier letter dated 22 December 1962, wherein the respondent had requested the club to furnish information concerning the employment in the petitioner's establishment. This letter led to the filing of the present writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the proceedings taken by the District Employment officer. The petitioner status in its affidavit that the club is a member club not run with any profit motive, that it is not in the nature of a commercial undertaking and that the communication of the District Employment Officer asking the club to furnish particulars Is based on a misconstruction of what an establishment means within the meaning of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act of 1959. It is the contention of the petitioner that not only is the petitioner-club not an establishment within the meaning of the Act but also that no industry, trade, business or occupation is carried on in the premises. It is urged that the respondent has no jurisdiction to call upon the club to furnish the information sought.

(2.) THE respondent in his equator-affidavit claims that the abovementioned Act was enacted for the purpose of undertaking measures for the training and employment of persons on information gathered to indicate the employment trends in the market, is order that vocational training might be given to make employees suitable for the demands of the employers, the Act makes it compulsory upon employers to report all vacancies except in certain categories. It is claimed that the Act applies to all establishments in the private sector, where ordinarily 25 or more persons are employed for remuneration. It is claimed also that, having regard to the object of the Act, the expressions,"industry," "business," "trade "and "occupation" need not involve any connotation of a profit motive. It is urged, therefore, that the District Employment Officer is within his powers in calling upon the petitioner to furnish the required information.

(3.) SRI T. A. Ramaswami Reddiar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-club, in the course of his argument contends that lathe light of decisions which have deals with organizations Like tae petitioner-club for the purpose of analogous enactments, it should be held that the petitioner -club would not come within the scope of an establishment as defined in the Act. That is the short contention which requires to be examined.