THE COSMOPOLITAN CLUB Vs. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Cosmopolitan Club, Madras, is the petitioner. The respondent, the District Employment Officer, wrote to the petitioner club on 23rd March, 1963, a letter drawing attention to an earlier letter dated 22nd 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 states in its affidavit that the club is a members' club not run with any profit motive, that it is not 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 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. The respondent in his counter -affidavit claims that the above mentioned 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. In 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.

(2.) Mr. T.A. Ramaswami Reddiar, learned Counsel for the petitioner club, in the course of his arguments contends that in the light of decisions which have dealt with organisations like the 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 this Act. That is the short contention which requires to be examined.

(3.) The Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act makes it compulsory upon the employer in every establishment in the private sector to notify any vacancy arising in the establishment to such Employment Exchanges as may be prescribed. Sec. 4 of the Act makes it compulsory for every establishment in the public sector to do so on and after the commencement of this Act. But, in the case of an establishment in the private sector, the appropriate Government issues a notification under Sec. 4 (2) of the Act making the provisions applicable thereto. It is not in dispute that such a notification was issued in 1960. Turning to the definitions contained in the Act, the word 'employee' and 'employer' are defined in relation to an "establishment", the one as employed to do any work for remuneration and the other as one who employs one or more person to do work for remuneration. 'Establishment' is defined to mean any office or any place where any industry, trade, business or occupation is carried on. Nextly, the expressions "establishment in the public sector" and 'establishment in the private, sector' are defined the latter being defined to mean an establishment which is not an establishment in the public sector and where ordinarily 25 or more persons are employed, to work for remuneration. While Sec. 4, by sub -sections (1) and (2), makes it obligatory, upon establishments in the public sector and in the private sector respectively to notify vacancies, S. 3 makes the Act inapplicable in relation to certain type of vacancies, so that in the case of even establishments which are compelled to notify vacancies, certain specified vacancies need not be notified. An important provision is Sec. 4, sub -section (4), which states that notwithstanding the obligation to report the vacancies, it does not impose the further obligation upon the employer to recruit any person through the Employment Exchange to fill the vacancy reported. Broadly stated, therefore, this Act confers no authority upon the Employment Exchanges to insist that any person indicated by them should be employed for the purpose of filling the vacancy reported by an establishment. Reading these provisions in the Act along with the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it appears to be abundantly clear that the Act was brought on the statute book only for the purpose of enabling the appropriate authorities to assess the employment potential in various categories of employment. The Act was clearly intended to serve a statistical need to assess any future policy in connection with the imparting of training to potential employees.