N R MUKHERJEE Vs. ARNOLD HARTMAN JUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although we have heard very interesting arguments on the question whether the business of a Chartered Accountant is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, we find it impossible to decide that question at the present stage. The first two appellants are two of the employees of a firm of Chartered Accountants named Messrs. Price Waterhouse Peat and Co., and the third appellant is a discharged employee of that firm. The firm of Messrs. Price Waterhouse Peat and Co. represented by Respondents 1, 2 and 3 will be hereinafter described as the firm. A dispute having arisen with regard to the claim for bonus made by the first two appellants and the discharge of the third appellant the Employees' Association of the firm took up the dispute as a collective dispute and at its instance the Government of the State of West Bengal by an order dated July 1, 1955 referred the following issues to the First Industrial Tribunal for adjudication: 1. Whether deduction of bonus granted to Sri N. R. Mukherjee and Sri S. Kanungo (appellants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) is justified? To what relief are they entitled?

(2.) Is the discharge of Prantosh Bakshi (appellant No. 3) justified? What relief is he entitled to? 2. Before the Tribunal the firm filed two written statements challenging the competency of the Tribunal to adjudicate on the issues. In the first written statement the preliminary objection was based on the ground that the firm carries on professional work of Accountants without employment of capital as in trade or industry and consequently the employees of the firm are not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the second written statement the firm raised an additional objection to the effect that the income of the firm is earned "solely" by the efforts of persons having specialised knowledge depending exclusively on their personal skill and merit. The appellants in their rejoinder stated that besides the work of auditing accounts of various commercial concerns, the firm represents' industrial and commercial concerns before the income-tax authorities and it also acts as Secretaries of different commercial concerns and as Liquidator for companies going into liquidation. The appellants further denied that the income of the firm was earned "solely" by the efforts of the partners of the firm and pleaded that for the diverse undertakings of the firm it maintained a large number of clerical subordinate staff to manage its undertaking and business. Upon the aforesaid pleadings two disputed' questions of fact arose before the Tribunal:

(3.) The Tribunal without taking any evidence took upon itself the duty of deciding the question whether the business of a Chartered Accountant is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and answered that issue in the affirmative. Against that order the firm filed an application for an appropriate writ upon the Tribunal for quashing its order and for prohibiting the Tribunal from exercising any jurisdiction over the issues referred to it. In their affidavit-in-opposition in this Court the appellants explained the manner in which the firm carries on its business and stated in paragraph 5 as follows :