DECISION These are two cross-appeals one filed by the Workers* Union and the other by the Management. The appeal by the Workers' Union is KAR-269 of 1974. It was filed on the 23rd of August 1974 through Mr. M. L. Shahani and the other Appeal KAR-288 of 1974 by the Management has been filed by Mr. Shakiel Z. Lari on the 5th of September 197 4. I propose to dispose of both the appeals by the same order as they arise out of the common order.
2. Mr. M. L. Shahani, for the Union, contended in the first place, that the agreement dated 17th of August 1973 was arrived at under duress, coercion and pressure and, therefore, not binding on the Union. In this connection Mr. Shahani referred to the charge-sheet of the Management dated the 7th of August 1973 whereby the Management had charge-sheeted 38 workers for misconduct. The suggestion of Mr. Shahani was that this amounts to coercion and pressure and, therefore, the Union was obliged to come to terms. There is not much force in his contention. The mere exercise of legal right cannot be said to be coercion or undue pressure. The Manage* ment was at its right to charge-sheet the workers for misconduct. I would hold accordingly.
2. In the second place it was contended that the agreement was not binding as it was not entered by the Company which cannot be said to be incorporated and, therefore, not binding. There is not much force in this contention. The Management, at any rate, is covered by the definition of the Employer. The definition of the Employer under section 2(viii) runs as under:-- "Employ er" in relation to an establishment means any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not who or which employs workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment and includes-- (a) ................... "Establishment" is defined under section 2(ix) as under: -- " 'Establishment* means any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking* shop or premises in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on any industry." 'Industry* is defined under section 2(xiv) as under1-- " 'Industry'* means any business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation." In my opinion, therefore, the Hotel is a business which is, therefore, anl industry. I 3. For these reasons I would hold that the respondent is an "Employer".
4. Lastly, Mr. Shahani contended that the word "or" occurring in the definition of 'Employer* is disjunctive. It is so.
On the other hand Mr. Shakiel Z. Lari, for the respondent-Company emphasise the words "who or which employs workmen in the establishment." The definition of the 'Employer* has to be read as a whole. I would hold that the respondent management is employer within the meaning of the definition given under section 2(viii) of the I. R. O. of 1969. The appeal of Mr. Shahani, for the reasons given above, is dismissed.
5. I would now take up the appeal of Mr. Shakiel Lari. His contention was two-fold that the Labour Court has through oversight mentioned the period of the agreement only two years though it is for three years. Mr. Shahani for the respondent in the case conceded this point. In the second place Mr. Lari contended that the agreement was dated 17th of August 1973 and not the 29th September 1973. This is so. The copy of the agreement has been filed as Annexure 'B' with the memorandum of appeal. It is dated 17th of August 1973 and not as mentioned by the Court as 29th of September 1973. On the face of it the contention of Mr. Lari appears to be well founded and, therefore, I accept his contention. Necessary corrections, therefore, will have to be made in the award given by the learned Court in respect of the date of the agreement and period.