LexCRICKET CLUB OF INDIA LTD. versus THE BOMBAY LABOUR UNION & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
600 CRICKET CLUB OF INDIA LTD. v. THE BOMBAY LABOUR UNION & ANOTHER August 7, 1968 [J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 2(i) and 10(2)-Cricket Club of India Ltd. at Bombay-organised with the primary object of promoting and encouraging sports end ga~s-havinR various activitic.r bringing income including letting building.r on rent for commercial and residential purposes-if industry within s. 2(j). The Deputy Commis•ioner of Bombay made a rcfeirenoe under s. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the lndust1ial Tribunal, Maharashtra, of a dispute between the appellant Cricket Club of India Ltd. and the workmen employed by it in respect of various demands made by the workmen. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the Club that it "-'as not an 'industry', and, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it, so that a refcrenee under s. 10(2) was DOI competenl The Tribunal rejected this preliminary objection holding that the club came within the definition of "industry" in s. 2(j) of the Aot and set down tbe case for hearini:. In appeal to this Court by special leave, it was contended inter alia on behalf of the respondents, that the objects and other facts on the record showed the Club was an "industry" as it was carrying on various activittcs in the nature of trade or business, such as constructing buildings for the purpose of earning income from the rents payable by business concem1, letting out residential accommodation in the club premi5es to members some o'f whom lived there more or less permanently, undertaking catering activities through maintaining: stalls and otherwise \\'here various thini;?S were sold not only to members but outsiders also, providing catering for large parties on a systematic basis, deriving large income from holding cricket rest matches and other games at its Stadium and the club premises; it was further contended that the club was incorporated as a limited com- pany under the Companie! Act and the effect of this in law was that the duh became an entity separate and distinct from its members so that, in providing catering facilities, the club ac; a separate legal entity, was entering into tran~actions with the members who were distinct from the club itself. HELD : The order made hy the Tribunal holding that the cluh was an .. industry'' was incorrect and must be set aside. The appellant was a club of. members or!?llnised with the primary object of encouraging and promoung sport• and games .. The activity of promotion of sports and games by a set of people combmmg together to focm a club cannot be said to he an undertaking in the nature of a trade or business in '1r·hicb matecial goods or material services are provided with the aid of the employees. [607 C-DJ The Secretary. Mcdras G,vmkhana Club Emp/ayees' Union v. The Management uf the Gymkhana Club, [1968] 1 S.C.R. 742; followed. A B c D E F G H A B c • D E F G H CRICKET CLUB V. LABOUR UNION 601 (i) The Tribunal fell into an error in ignorin_g the circumst_ilnces that the income, which was earned by the club from mvestment. of ~movab!e properties, could not be held to be income that a"."rued t? It with the aid and cooperation of the employees. From the evidence 1t v:as cleai; that in effect no employees of tho club were engaged in looking after the buildings which were let out for use as shops and offices. [608 C, D-EJ (ii) The facility of residential accommo_dation provided. by ~e club could not be said to be in the nature of keepmg a hotel as this facility was provided exclusively for members of the c~ub at much lower charges ~ those prevailing at hotels in the . city with comparable a~odati~n. It was in the nature of a self-service by the club organised for Its members. [609 BJ (iii) The catering provided in the refreshment room Of ·the club was also clearly provided only for tho members and the bye-laws of the Coun- cil Jay down that even if a guest was introduced by a '?ember, the guest was not entitled to pay for any refreshment served to him. "fl!e transac- tion continued to be confur-..d to the members of the club who mtroduced the guest. [609 GJ (iv) The catering facilities provided to members and outside!"' at stalls at the time of sports tou'rnarnents were only so provided twice a year and at concessional rates. The provision .of these stalls ~d not therefore be said
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.