LexTHE NATIONAL UNION OF COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND ANOTHER versus M. M. R. MEHER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BOMBAY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
\
}
I
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS .
157
the 19th could have and should have obtained
similar orders of the High Court for serving them.
If that precaution had been taken again on
May 19, 1958, probably what happened snbsequently
ou the spot and th'3r'3after, would not have taken
place.
I am therefore of opinion that the appellants
committed no contempt of Court, and would allow
their appeal.
BY COURT : In accordance with the opinion
of the majority, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Appe,al dismissed.
THE NATIONAL UNION OF COMMERCIAL
EMPLOYEES AND ANOTHER
v.
M. R. MERER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
BOMBAY AND OTHERS
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
.Industrial Dispute-Solicitor's profession-Work of solici-
tor, if an industry-Dispute with employee-Reference to Tribu-
nal-Oompetence-IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),
•. 2 (j).
The respondents were a firm carrying on the work of
solicitors in Bombay.
For the years 1956 and 1957 a claim
for bonus was made against them by their employees.
Before
the Industrial Tribunal to .which the dispute was referred by
the State Government for adjudication under the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the respondents conten-
ded that the profession followed by them was not an industry
within the meaning of s. 2(j) of the Act, that the dispute
raised against them was not an industrial dispute· under the
Act, and that, therefore, the reference made by the Govern-
ment was incompetent.
Held, that the work of solicitors is not an industry within
the meaning of s. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, T947
and that, therefore, any dispute raised by the employees of
1962
Hoshiar Singh
v.
Gurbachan Singh
Raghr,bar Daya/_ J,
1962
:l'ebruary 13.
1962
.ht v~e;onal Union
of Commncial
Employr1•
v.
.111.R. Mtiotr,
lntfusttial Tribunal
Bombay
158 ·suPRE:\[E COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
t·llc solicitors against the1n cannot be n1adc the subject of
r.·ferfn•e to the Industrial Tribunal.
'I'he cliting-ui~hing fl':ature of an
in<lustr~·
is that for
the
produrtion of goods
or
for
the
rr.ndcring
of
sc:r\·icr,
ro·operation
bel\\'Ct-ll
capital
and labciur
or
between the ctnploycr and his t>mplo)CC rnu~t lie <lirrct.
A
prrson f.Jl!o~vi11~·:· a liberal profcs-;!on doe; not carry on his
profe~sion in any intclli!jihle sense \\'ith thr- aci ivr co-operation
of his emplc1y!·rs, and the princip;d, if not 1hc sole, capital
\\·hirh he hriI!~s into his pr0fcs~i1.n is his
~rrrial or peculiar
intr.ll<Ttttal ar,d educational
rquip111cnt.
(;ons~qucntly, a
liberal proft·s:-:on like that of a ~o!icitor is outs!clc th1: definition
of "indusrr~" unUcr s. 2(j) of the i\ct.
State ~f Bombay v. Tl.e liospit;1! Jfaz,J,1or Sab/1a, ( l 960)
2 S.C.R. 8~)G, rxplaincd and clistinguhhcd.
Brij Jfol.an Bagarirt v .• '\'/./. G'hrttterju:., 1\.l.H .. l9j8 Cal.
4GO and/). l'. /)un<lfrrltfP \'. G. J>. tlfu/,·lt~.rjt>.r., t\ l.R. l95a c:al.
465, approvrd.
•
Ohscrvations in 'f'r,U:ratr:d Jfuniriprzl nnrl ,'-,'/,irr. Council
En1p!oyees' (} 1tion (If .·l U.'i{ralia v . .\1 e /!Jou r11e Cor_JYJrat ion, { 19 J 0 J
2n C.L.R. 'il!I<, relied on.
Crn1. ArrELL.ll'E Ji:msnrCT!ON: Civil Appeal
~o. 24 of 1!)61.
Ap1,.·al fn>n1 the judgrn011t and ord"r dat~·l
:'{ovcmber 20, ltl:JS, of the 1.l:irnlny I fo:h Court in
C•
• I c. . , \
1 · t.
N
')~ '') f I'}~ .
• 1pec1a.
l\'I
.- pp 1r,a 1011 .. 0. -'~· o
,,)'.
A. S II. Cluiri and /(. R. Clwwlknri, for the
appellant,,.
S. '/'. !Jcwi, and V.J. Jlerclumt, for responcJ.,nts
-.
Nos. 2 and ·1
and the lntcn<mcr (l'hl' Bombay
Incorporat,.d Law Socidy).
J 9fi:.'. February I :i,
Th" .J 11rlgm1in t of tho
Court was r.leli,·ered by
GA.JE~JJIUGAllKAlt, ,J.-Thi8 app~al arises out
of a di:;put" between the app1dliinh, the l\ationul
Union of Ctm11nrrcial Employc<'s & Anr., and tho
rcsponcle1.ts P<'reira, Fazalbhoy tmd lle,ai who
constitult• an At t.orncys' firm by name Jl/o. l'erPirn
Fazalbhoy & Co. It 1ippear~ that iu August, 1\)57
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
159
the appellant wrote to the respondl"nt firm setting
forth certain demands on behalf of its employees.
These demands related to bonus for the years 1955-
56 a!ld 1956-57 and to certain other mattel'f~ As
the parties could not agree, the dispute was taken
before tho Conciliation Officer.
Th'J Conciliation
Officer also failed to bring about a settlement and
so he su bmittod his failure reExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.