KANHAIYA LAL Vs. SATLUJ CLUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the award dated 11. 12. 1995 passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, in reference no. 163 of 1991 made by the Government of Punjab under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) on the issue of termination of the service of the workmen-petitioner (Kanhaiya Lal ).

(2.) IT is not necessary to give detailed facts and it is also not necessary to discuss the various points raised in the writ petition because we are of the considered opinion that the impugned award deserves to be quashed only on the ground that the findings recorded by the Labour Court, namely, that the 'club' is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Act is perverse and the Labour Court has failed to act in accordance with Section 11-A of the Act.

(3.) ONE of the objections raised by the employer to the entertainability of the reference was that it did not fall within the meaning of the term 'industry' as envisaged under Section 2 (j) of the Act. In support of this objection, the employer placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Madras Gymkhana Club Employees' Union v. Gymkhana Club, 1967 (2) L. L. J. 720 and in Cricket Club of India v. Bombay Labour Union, 1969 (1) L. L. J. 775. Learned Labour Court placed also reliance on these two judgments and upheld the objection of the employer. The Labour. Court held that the Club is not an industry. While recording this conclusion, the Labour Court observed that the representative of the workman has not shown him any authority taking a contrary view.