1958 (11) TMI 41 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the profession of a solicitor constitutes an "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. Whether the dispute between the solicitors and their employees qualifies as an industrial dispute.
3. The relevance of additional business activities carried out by the solicitors' firm.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the profession of a solicitor constitutes an "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act:

The principal question to be decided is whether the profession of a solicitor can be said to be an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Act defines "industry" as any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. The argument presented by the petitioners was that the profession of a solicitor falls within the words "business," "undertaking," and "calling" contained in the definition of "industry." However, the court found it difficult to accept that the profession of a solicitor is an undertaking. The word "undertaking" implies something that can be owned and transferred, which is not applicable to a solicitor's work, as it depends entirely on personal intellectual ability.

The word "calling" is very wide and means one's usual occupation, vocation, business, or trade. However, the court emphasized that the words "business" and "calling" must be read in their context and in conjunction with other words used in the same definition, which necessarily import the relationship of employer and employee. An essential requisite of industry is the existence of a master-servant relationship, which is not present in the profession of a solicitor. The court concluded that the profession of a solicitor does not require the co-operation of labor and is not an industry within the meaning of the Act.

2. Whether the dispute between the solicitors and their employees qualifies as an industrial dispute:

The dispute in question related to demands for bonuses and other matters by the employees of the solicitors' firm. The Tribunal initially upheld the objection raised by the respondents that the profession of solicitors was not an industry and, therefore, the dispute was not an industrial dispute. The court agreed with this view, stating that the basic concept of industry involves the co-operation of both the employer and the employees in producing wealth or rendering services. In the case of solicitors, the work is primarily personal and intellectual, and the staff performs ministerial functions without contributing to the core professional services. Therefore, the dispute between the solicitors and their employees does not constitute an industrial dispute under the Act.

3. The relevance of additional business activities carried out by the solicitors' firm:

After the arguments were over before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioners attempted to show that the respondents' firm carried on some business other than that of solicitors, such as dealing in shares and property. However, the Tribunal found that the allegations regarding business in shares and silver were denied by the respondents and believed their statements. Regarding the purchase and sale of property, it was found that the transactions were either irrelevant or not sufficient to classify the firm as being engaged in the business of buying and selling property. The court concluded that these additional activities did not affect the primary nature of the firm as a solicitors' practice and did not qualify it as an industry.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the profession of a solicitor is not an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the dispute between the solicitors and their employees was not an industrial dispute that could be referred under the Act. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.