TATA SPORTS CLUB Vs. RATILAL B RAVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th July 1997 of a learned Single Judge in Writ petition No. 2568 of 1994. By that judgment, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 workman and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for deciding the reference afresh.

(2.) The appellant - Tata Sports Club - is a sports club. The directors, officers and employees of the Tata group of companies and associated companies and such other organisations as the Managing Committee may determine from time to time residing in he local area of the Club are only eligible for its membership. The main objects of the Club, inter alia, are to organise, promote and afford facilities for indoor and outdoor games, any form of athletics, sports, recreation, sporting events, social meetings, entertainments, exhibitions or displays, and to organise meetings for the aforesaid purposes. The appellant has employed several employees to carry out its activities and achieve its aims and objects. According to the respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") , at the relevant time, there were 25-30 employees working in the Club while according to the club only 11 employees were employed by the Club. The respondent was appointed as a "marker" by the Club somewhere in the month of October 1983. According to the appellant, the respondent remained absent unauthorisedly on several occasions between March 1988 and October 1988. A charge sheet was served on the respondent some time in November 1988 alleging misconduct of unauthorised absence. The respondent denied the charges. According to him, in March 1988 he suffered injury in his right leg and was under treatment and had intimated about the same to the Club. In April 1988, he met with an accident by fall from a ladder and was immobilised. He could not attend the work due to pregnancy of his wife. This was also communicated to the Club in the month of September 1988. He was under medical treatment in October 1988 and had submitted a medical certificate to the Club to that effect. According to the respondent, he was not absent purposely without any cause.

(3.) The The appellant found unsatisfactory the explanation given by the respondent and accordingly an enquiry was held. The enquiry officer held that the charges were proved and by an order dated 12th May 1989 the appellant terminated services of the respondent on the alleged ground of misconduct and past record of service. An industrial dispute was raised by the respondent demanding his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages which was referred for adjudication to the VIIth Labour Court. The respondent submitted his statement of claim alleging that his services were wrongfully and illegally terminated. According to him, the enquiry into his alleged misconduct was not proper and was held without following the principles of natural justice and no opportunity was given to him for explaining his absence. The appellant filed the written statement denying the averments. The appellant contended that it being a private service club was not an industry and, therefore the reference was bad in law. As regards the enquiry, the appellant contended that the enquiry was fair and proper and in case the court held that the enquiry was not proper, the appellant be given an opportunity to prove the charge of misconduct before the court.