The calling of a solicitor, in so far as it is dependent upon the solicitor's own intellectual attainments and skill, is not an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Brij Mohan Bagaria is an attorney practising in this court. He has been practising as such for the last 18 years and at the present moment has a large establishment at his office situate at No. 6, Old Post Office Street, consisting of 6 qualified assistants, 2 articled clerks, about 42 ordinary clerks and 14 other described as 'subordinate staff'. I mention this because in a reference made by Government of West Bengal, to which I shall presently refer, it has been stated that an industrial dispute, exists between 'messrs. B. M. Bagaria, 6, Old Post Office Street, Calcutta and their employees as represented by B. M. Bagaria's Employees' Union, 45, Bow Bazar Street, Calcutta", and in an order made, by the First Labour Court the learned Judge has described the petitioner as a 'company'. In this application, the petitioner has alleged that he is an attorney practising in this Court and the employees are his employees which fact is not denied. It appears, however, that the employees of the petitioner have grouped themselves into an Union known as 'b. M. Bagaria Employees Union' and have been conducting themselves as if the calling of a solicitor is an 'industry' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). In or about November, 1956 the Union submitted a Charter of Demand, demanding increment of basic salary, dearness allowance etc. The only affidavit-in-opposition filed herein is by the Secretary of the Union and it is stated therein that the Charter of Demand was issued because, while the business of the petitioner was a flourishing one, the basic salary paid to the clerical and subordinate staff fell far below the middle class and working class living index respectively and did not even reach the bare subsistence level. The petitioner alleges that the employees, by their concerted action tried to create a deadlock in the office and employed pressure tactics and even resorted to threats of assault. This, of course, is not admitted) on behalf of the Union. It is, however, a fact that on 18-3-1957 the employees resorted to a pen-down strike. Thereupon, the petitioner served charge-sheets on some of the employees and after enquiry terminated the services of some of them. According to the Secretary of the Union, this was an instance of victimisation for participating in a lawful pen-down strike which was conducted in a manner permitted by law. The Union approached the Labour Department of the Government of West Bengal and conciliation proceedings were started. It is alleged that the attempts to settle the matter by conciliation failed. On 10-7-1957 an order was made by the Government of West Bengal under Section 10 of the Act, referring the alleged industrial dispute for adjudication by a Labour Court constituted under Section 7 of the said Act. The relevant part of the order of reference is set out below:"where an industrial dispute exists between Messrs. B. M. Bagaria, 6 Old Post Office Street, Calcutta and their employees as represented by B. M. Bagaria's Employees Union 45 Bow Bazar Street, Calcutta 12 relating to the under-mentioned issues in matters specified in the second schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (XIV of 1947 ). . . . . . . . . . the Governor is pleased hereby to refer the said dispute to the First Labour Court. . . . . . . for adjudication. . . . . . . . . "issues:"1. Is the dismissal of Sri Debenedra Nath Mitra and of 16 other workers (as per list enclosed herewith) by the management justified? 2. What relief are they entitled to?"

( 2 ) THE petitioner thereupon made an application sometime in August 1957 before the First Labour Court for its decision on the preliminary point as to whether the petitioner was carrying on an 'industry' and, therefore, whether his employees were workmen as defined in the Act, and whether the alleged dispute between the petitioner and his employees constituted an industrial dispute within the me