Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
ROYAL CALCUTTA GOLF CLUB MAZUDUR UNION - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Matter 151 Of 1955
Decided On : JULY 13, 1956
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - REFERENCE OF DISPUTES - DISCRETION OF GOVERNMENT - DUTIES OF CONCILIATION OFFICER - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GOLF CLUB AS INDUSTRY.
Fact of the Case:
The Royal Calcutta Golf Club Mazdur Union submitted a Charter of Demand to the club, which included recognition of the union, fixing scales and classification of pay, house allowance, working hours, bonus, and reinstatement of discharged workmen. The club did not comply with the demands, and the dispute was referred to the government. The Assistant Labour Commissioner called a joint conference of the club and its workmen, but the union refused to participate unless the club reinstated one Ramavatar and withdrew proceedings against Mangru Sardar. The Conciliation Officer held further conferences, but the union continued to refuse to participate unless its demands were met. The Conciliation Officer submitted a report to the government, which decided not to intervene in the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the government had the discretion to refer or not to refer an industrial dispute to adjudication, and that the court could not interfere with the government's decision unless it was mala fide or dishonest. The court also held that the duties of a Conciliation Officer were administrative, not judicial, and that the investigations in this case had not violated the rules of natural justice. Finally, the court held that a golf club was an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the government had the discretion to refer or not to refer an industrial dispute to adjudication? 2. Whether the duties of a Conciliation Officer were administrative or judicial? 3. Whether the investigations in this case had violated the rules of natural justice? 4. Whether a golf club was an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the government had the discretion to refer or not to refer an industrial dispute to adjudication, and that the court could not interfere with the government's decision unless it was mala fide or dishonest. This was based on the wording of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which used the word "may" to describe the government's power to refer disputes. 2. The court held that the duties of a Conciliation Officer were administrative, not judicial. This was based on the provisions of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which described the Conciliation Officer's duties as investigating disputes and doing all such things as he thought fit to induce the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement. 3. The court held that the investigations in this case had not violated the rules of natural justice. This was based on the fact that the union had taken an obstructive attitude from the beginning, refusing to participate in conciliation proceedings unless its demands were met. 4. The court held that a golf club was an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. This was based on the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and dismissed the petition.
( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner before me is the Royal Calcutta Golf Club Mazdur Union, being a Trade-Union of the workers employed in the Royal Calcutta Golf Club, which is an institution incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with liability limited by guarantee without the addition of the word 'limited'. This institution is primarily an association of persons, who desire to play golf in Calcutta, and renders all facilities for that purpose. It is not denied that it makes available food and drink for consumption of its members, as also that it maintains a shop where members can buy their golfing equipment. Lessons are also given for which fees are charged. Between 17-11-1954 and 5/6-12-1954 the petitioner submitted a Charter of Demand of the workmen of the said club, to the Secretary of the club. The Charter of Demand inter alia contained demands for recognition of the Union, for fixing scales and classification of pay, house allowance, working hours, bonus etc. It also demanded reinstatement of some workmen who had been discharged. As the Charter of Demand was not complied with, it was referred to Government, and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, called a joint conference of the club and its workmen on 17-12-1954. At the said joint conference the main subject for discussion was the dismissal of one Ramavatar, and suspension of Mangru Sardar, and a demand was made that Ramavatar should be forthwith reinstated and the proceedings against Man-gvu Sardar should be withdrawn. Until this was done the Union was not prepared to discuss the other disputes. As a matter of fact, it insisted that there should be a reference to adjudication straightaway with regard to the disputes regarding these two workmen. The Conciliation Officer explained that the disputes could not be considered in this piece-meal fashion, and he fixed another joint conference to be held on 28-12-1954. According to the affidavit filed by the Conciliation Officer, nobody turned up on behalf of the petitioner on 28-12-1954. On behalf of the petitioner it is stated that no intimation was given to the petitioner about the proposed joint conference on the 28th, but as a matter of fact it was on that date that a notice was given for a conference to be held on 11-1-1955. It is very difficult to determine as to the truth or otherwise of this grievance. I find however that, on 24-12-1954 a letter was written by the President of the Union to the Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, a copy whereof is annexed to the affidavit of Fatik Ghose affirmed on 30-1-1956 and marked with the letter 'a'. In this letter, it is definitely stated that in view of the attitude of the Club Authorities no fruitful result would come out of the conciliation and that the conciliation proceedings had failed. It proceeds to state as follows:--"the Union considers it fruitless to continue participation in the conciliation talk. In these circumstances, may I hope that you would kindly close conciliation talk and ask the Government for referring the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal at an early date. "
( 2 ) EVEN after this, the Conciliation Officer held further joint conference, and it is not denied that the petitioner participated in it. Thus, there were joint conferences on 11-1-1955 and on 20-1-1955. On the last date, as there could not be a settlement arrived at, in the case of Mangru Sardar, the representatives of the Union left the Conference and refused to participate in it. A Conference was again fixed on 9-3-1955 which was postponed to 24-3-1955. It does not appear, however, from the affidavits as to what happened at that conference. The Conciliation Officer thereafter asked the club to submit its written comments on the Charter of Demand and the club did so on or about 7-3-1955. The Conciliation Officer carefully considered all the facts and made a report, as ho is required to do under Section 12 of th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
