BAR ASSOCIATION CANTEEN Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management of the Bar Association Canteen has filed this writ petition impugning the decision of the additional Industrial tribunal, Delhi, dated 19 May 1965, on the following two preliminary issues:

(2.) IT is alleged in the writ petition that the District Courts Bar Association, Delhi, has a membership of over 1,300 persons, who are practising as lawyers within the jurisdiction of the District Courts at Delhi, that it was felt by the said bar association that some arrangement for provision of beverages, snacks and food to the members should be made and a resolution was passed in 1952 for setting up a canteen for providing Bracks and beverages during lunch hours to the members of the association. A small portion in the verandah was allotted for this purpose to the bar association in the Hindu College building at Delhi where the canteen was started on "noprofit no-loss" basis for the exclusive use by the members of the District Bar Association that as a result of certain representations made on behalf of the association a bar room and a room for canteen were constructed in one block in the eastern wing to the New Courts Building at Tis Hazari; that about April 1958, the bar association, as usual, started it canteen on "no-profit no-loss)" basis for the use of the members or the bar exclusively; that the right of admission to the canteen was reserved exclusively to the members of the bar, that the canteen is being managed by the canteen sub-committee appointed by the executive committee of the District Courts Bar Association, Delhi that the said canteen is run in a portion of the premises allotted to the bar association by the Government free of rent, without any charges for electricity or water and that the canteen has been started fur the benefit of the members of the bar association, majority of whom come from long distances after taking only tea or light breakfast. It is further stated in the writ petition that the bar association provides various facilities to the member, such as cold drinking water in summer, boiled drinking water in rainy season, telephone and library facilities out of the monthly subscription paid toy toe members and all the expenses of the bar association, including the canteen, are being met by subscription from the members and the sale of articles in the canteen is on "no-profit no-loss " basis.

(3.) CERTAIN disputes between the workmen and the petitioner relating to the claim for bonus, pay-scales, gratuity, festival holidays and winter uniform v. ere referred by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, to the additional industrial tribunal for adjudication. The additional industrial tribunal formulated the abovementioned two preliminary issues. The claim made in the writ petition has been refuted in the reply-affidavit filed by Sri Ramesh Chander Sharma. Broadly, the position taken up in the reply-affidavit is that, the canteen is not intended exclusively for the members of the bar association; that the canteen caters to the needs of the members of the bar, their relatives, friends and clients whose number is quite high; that the canteen is not run on "no-profit no-loss" basis; and that the canteen is an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The additional industrial tribunal decided in favour of respondent 4, that is, the Hotel Worker Union, on both the abovesaid preliminary issues. For completeness, it would be appropriate to sum up the various findings of the additional industrial tribunal. They are: