1977 Supreme(Cal) 124
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ramendra Mohan Datta & Salil Kumar Hazra, JJ.
Joy Engineering Works Limited – Appellant
Versus
Fourth Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta & other – Respondents
Appeal from Original Order No. 16 of 1975 (Mandamus)
Decided On: April 25, 1977
Milan Banerjee & C.R. Dutta for the Appellant.
Parbati P. Ghosh for the State.
Susil Kumar Biswas & Miss Swagata Biswas far the Workmen's Union of India.
The teachers and the durwans of the Usha Sewing Schools were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and that they had been rendering material services to the company with a view to produce material goods.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - Section 2(j), 2(k), 2(s) - Usha Sewing Schools - Whether industry - Whether teachers and durwans workmen - Order of reference - Validity - Section 33B - Withdrawal and transfer of proceedings - Reasons - Whether stated - Principles of natural justice - Violation - Settlement - Validity - Sub-rule (3) of rule 68 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 - Compliance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company runs various Usha Sewing Schools. The teachers and the durwans of the said schools demanded payment of dearness allowance. The company refused to pay the same and the reference was made to the Second Industrial Tribunal by the Government after the conciliation proceedings had failed. The appellant company challenged the order of reference and took a preliminary point of law before the Tribunal that the order of reference dated 31.1.1972 and the order of transfer of the industrial dispute from the Second Industrial Tribunal to the Fourth Industrial Tribunal dated 25.5.1972 were invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the dispute which was referred to by the Government of West Bengal was an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court further held that the teachers and the durwans of the Usha Sewing Schools were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and that they had been rendering material services to the company with a view to produce material goods. The Court also held that the order of reference was valid and could not be assailed as made without jurisdiction. The Court further held that the order of withdrawal and transfer of proceedings under section 33B of the Industrial Disputes Act was valid and proper and that the reasons for withdrawal and transfer had been stated in the order. The Court also held that the settlement arrived at between the parties was not valid as it did not comply with the mandatory provision of sub-rule (3) of rule 68 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute which was referred to by the Government of West Bengal was an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the teachers and the durwans of the Usha Sewing Schools were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act? 3. Whether the order of reference was valid? 4. Whether the order of withdrawal and transfer of proceedings under section 33B of the Industrial Disputes Act was valid and proper? 5. Whether the settlement arrived at between the parties was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the dispute which was referred to by the Government of West Bengal was an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the teachers and the durwans of the Usha Sewing Schools were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and that they had been rendering material services to the company with a view to produce material goods. 2. The Court held that the order of reference was valid and could not be assailed as made without jurisdiction. 3. The Court held that the order of withdrawal and transfer of proceedings under section 33B of the Industrial Disputes Act was valid and proper and that the reasons for withdrawal and transfer had been stated in the order. 4. The Court held that the settlement arrived at between the parties was not valid as it did not comply with the mandatory provision of sub-rule (3) of rule 68 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs. The trial court order was confirmed. Interim orders, if any, were vacated.
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the Order dated 16.8.1974 passed by Masud, J. The learned judge discharged the Rule obtained by the Joy Engineering Works Limited, hereinafter called the company.
2. The main point which is involved in this matter is whether the, dispute which was referred to by the Government of West Bengal was an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The short facts are that the petitioner company runs various Usha Sewing Schools. The teachers and the durwans of the said schools demanded payment of dearness allowance. The company refused to pay the same and the reference was made to the Second Industrial Tribunal by the Government after the conciliation proceedings had failed. The appellant company challenged the order of reference and took a preliminary point of law before the Tribunal that the order of reference dated 31.1.1972 and the order of transfer of the industrial dispute from the Second Industrial Tribunal to the Fourth Industrial Tribunal dated 25.5.1972 were invalid. It is contended that the different Usha Sewing Schools are not industries within the meaning of the word industry as defined in section 2(j) of the said Act, 1947. In any event, the teachers of the said schools cannot come within the meaning of the word as defined in section 2(s) of the said Act of 1947.
3. On behalf of the appellant reliance has been placed on the case of Management of Safdarjung Hospital vs. Kuldip Singh Sethi, AIR 1970 SC 1407, in which the Supreme Court after reviewing many of its previous decisions in connection with the expression industry, workman and industrial dispute as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 laid down the principles broadly. At page 1413 the Supreme Court observed it therefore follows that before an industrial dispute can be raised between employers and their employees or between employers and employees or between employees and employees in relation to the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the condition of labour of any person, there must be first established a relationship of employees and employees associating together, the former following a trade, business, manufacture, undertaking or calling of employers in the production of material goods and material services and the latter following any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen in aid of the employers' enterprise. It is not necessary that there must be a profit motive but the enterprise must be analogus to trade or business in a commercial sense, then again at page 1414 the Supreme Court accepted the conclusion arrived at by its previous judgment and decision in Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union vs. Management of the Gymkhana Club, AIR 1968 SC 554. The conclusion which was so accepted runs as follow:-
"Before the work engaged it cannot be described as an industry, it must bear the definite character of trade or business or manufacture or calling or must be capable of being described as an undertaking resulting in material goods or material services."
4. Regarding material services and the meaning to be attached to the said expression the Supreme Court in the above case at page 1413 observed:-
"Material services are not services which depend wholly or largely upon on the contribution or professional knowledge, skill or dexterity for the production of a result. Such services being given individually and by individual are services no doubt but not material services. Even an establishment whore many such operate cannot be said to convert their professional services into material services. Material services involved an activity carried on through co-operation between employers and employees to provide the community with the use of something such as electric power, water, transportation, mail delivery, telephone and the light. In providing these services there may be