- (1.) THE petitioner in this application is the Royal Calcutta Golf Club (hereinafter referred to as the 'club'), which is situated, and maintains its golf-course and other facilities for playing golf, in the suburbs of Calcutta. It maintains a club-house and two golf courses. It is stated that for the maintenance of its golf courses and for carrying out its objects, it maintains a permanent staff of more than 100 persons. At all material times, prior to January 14. 1957 the club used to Employ eight female laborers being respondents Nos. 4 to 11, who worked in the golf-courses in order to maintain them in proper condition. The work consisted principally of removing leaves, weeding the greens etc. It is in evidence that ever since 1948 the club has been contemplating the abolition of the said system of employing female labor for clearing the golf-courses. The reasons why it wanted to do so appear from the evidence and I shall presently refer to it. It appears that previously there were a number of temporary female laborers doing this kind of work but by 1957 the number had been reduced to eight. So far as the other workers are concerned, it is stated in the petition that the club is really a week-end club and that it is not doing very well as in the past and it had to raise additional funds by issue of debentures, which it is called upon, from time to time, to repay. It is pointed out that from the year 1957-58 the club has been suffering a loss. By order dated July 11, 1957 a reference was made under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, referring an industrial dispute between the club and its workmen represented by the Royal Calcutta Golf Club Mazdoor Union for adjudication of the Third Industrial Tribunal. The issues referred were as follows:-1. Wages and dearness allowances for all categories of workers.
(2.) WORKING hours for kitchen staff and bearers of the Club.
(3.) WHETHER the management was justified in discharging the eight female workmen named in the order. To what relief were they entitled. 2. A subsequent issue, being Issue No. 4 regarding bonus was added later on, but in this application there is no dispute raised with regard to the findings on that issue and, therefore, I am not called upon to consider the same. Each of the findings on these three issues has been challenged in this application. With regard to the first issue viz. , wages and dearness allowances for all categories of workmen employed by the club the Tribunal noted that the Union had adduced no evidence about wages in comparable industries. The club claimed that the wages which were being paid were fair and equitable and compared favorably to those of similar clubs. Actually, the club produced an award relating to nine other clubs and the Tribunal distinctly finds that in comparison, the wages which the club has been paying were not inadequate. The conclusion arrived at is in the following terms :- "in the present case, none except the caddies get total emoluments below Rs. 55/ -. The said sum cannot be considered to be inadequate as minimum having regard to what prevails in other clubs. " 3. The Tribunal further finds as a fact that the financial position of the club as disclosed was not such as would admit of an increment both in the basic wages and dearness allowance. The Tribunal held that no increment was called upon to be made in the basic wages. It, however, decided that an increment should be granted in respect of dearness allowance. It then proceeds to grant an increase of dearness allowance with regard to the various classes of employees to the extent of Rs. 3/- each, per month. In doing so, the Tribunal bases its finding on no evidence. In short, there is nothing in the evidence adduced to justify the comment that the increase in the dearness allowances has not been commensurate with the increase in the cost-of-living. No evidence at all has been adduced about the increase in the cost-of-living and, therefore, a comparison is impossible. Then again, the Tribunal says that there are other sources of income, particularly from the "greens" which had a possibility of expansion. There is not an iota of evidence on this point. The result is that this increase in the dearness allowance has been allowed arbitrarily, without any material whatsoever, and can not be supported;