to say, habitual absenteeism, there was no need for any departmental inquiry and on the basis of the Respondent’s admissions, she could well be terminated from service. Learned Counsel, in the alternative, submits that the Petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860; its activities include co-ordinating the work of various export organizations and undertaking common functions and services in relation to them; the related agencies were the Petitioner’s members and paid membership fees; and the Petitioner-society does not earn any profit or get any grant for its expenses. It is submitted that the Petitioner’s functioning is akin to that of a co-operative society and it is not an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Counsel lastly submits that even if this Court were to come to a conclusion that the Respondent’s services could not have been terminated except after a departmental inquiry, it was imperative for CGIT to itself allow the Petitioner-establishment to lead evidence and make out a case before it in support of the Respondent’s misconduct. It is submitted that this Court may, in the premises, remand the reference to CGIT for affording such opportunity to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel relies on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Motipur Sugar Factory1 in support of this contention .
