BENGAL CLUB LTD Vs. SANTI RANJAN SOMADDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts is this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner is a company incorporated, with liability limited by guarantee, under the India Companies Act. The company maintains a Club for the benefit of its members at premises No. 33 Chowringhee Road in the town of Calcutta. Respondent 1 Santi Ranjan Somaddar was employed by the petitioner since 1-2-1947 as an assistant bill clerk. It is stated that he frequently absented himself from duty, so much so that during his seven years of employment he was absent for a total of almost three years. It is further stated that other office clerks have from time to time requested the Secretary of the Club to take some steps to find another employee or make some arrangements for the work to be done during the absence of respondent 1, the burden of which fell upon them. On or about 9-6-1954 he absented himself from duty without any leave or authority and continued to absent himself. By letters dated 25-6-1954 and 8-7-1954 the petitioner required respondent 1 to resume his duties but he failed to do so. He also failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation for his long and obstinate absence. It appears from the correspondence that at the time of taking leave, ell the information that he gave to the authorities of the Club was a short letter dated 9-6-1954 stating that he had a 'very urgent piece of business.' It is stated in the affidavit filed by the said respondent that his mother became ill and that is why he had to take leave. It is clear that the authorities concerned did not believe in this excuse, as it was not the first time that respondent 1 had been absenting himself without leave. For example, in January 1954 he had absented himself without any leave whatsoever for ten days. In fact, it appears that he habitually did so, to the great inconvenience of his employers and fellow employees. On or about 14-7-1954 the Secretary of the Club informed respondent 1 that the Committee of the Club had decided in the interest of the Club and its staff to dismiss him from service, with effect from 14-7-1954 for insubordination and for continued and determined unauthorised absence. The Secretary pointed out that the Committee was not satisfied with the excuses shown, for not complying with the orders made by the Club authorities, as also with his past conduct and service. Respondent 1 protested, and it seems that the Government of West Bengal, professing to act in exercise of power conferred by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter Called 'the Act') referred the dispute between the petitioner and the said respondent for adjudication to the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta (hereinafter called 'the tribunal'). The reference was made by an order dated 2-5-1955 and the dispute referred was as follows:-- "Whether termination of service of Shree Santo Ranjan Somaddar was justified? -- To what relief is he entitled?"

(2.) It might be mentioned here that the cause of respondent 2 has not been taken up by any trade union or by the general body of workmen employed by the petitioner. In fact, it would appear from the facts stated above, that his fellow workers protested at his continued absence and demanded that the Club should do something in respect of the same, so that their own burden would not be unfairly increased. Respondent 2, the Seventh Industrial Tribunal Calcutta, took up the reference and was proceeding with it. On or about 9-6-1955 the petitioner filed his defence objecting to the jurisdiction of the said respondent. If is alleged that the said respondent is not willing to accede to the petitioner's contention and intends to proceed with the reference and to make the award. This Rule was issued on 14-6-1955 calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of prohibition should not be issued prohibiting the said respondent from entertaining the proceeding and or why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be made quashing the proceedings and or why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent to forbear from giving effect to the said order of reference. Further proceedings have been stayed pending the disposal of this Rule.

(3.) Mr. Ginwalla appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken two points. The first point is that the dispute is not an industrial dispute because the petitioner company cannot be said to be carrying on an industry. The second point is that in any event, it cannot be an industrial dispute, being a dispute between the company and an individual workman. 1 shall now deal with tire first point. The word 'Industrial dispute' is defined in Section 2(k) of the Act and means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person. Section 2(s) defines a 'Workman' as any person employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward. According to Section 2(j), Industry' means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers, and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.