Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Contentions and Citations :

6. It has been contended by the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners that the definition of the word "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Act was progressive with its own universe of discourse and objectives. It was argued that the same word need not have the same meaning in different contexts and the word "industry" is required to be read from the widest possible angle in the context of the industrial law. It was submitted that the meaning of the words used in the statute can change from time to time with the change of conception and understanding of the people. What was excluded from the word "industry" a few decades ago, may not be excluded today in view of the changing conception and understanding of the people, who were concerned with the industrial law. Even the concept of sovereign functions has undergone a change and is to be viewed strictly. It was argued that only the functions relating to defence of the country, law and order and administration of justice would be essential sovereign functions properly so called and all other functions should be treated as non-sovereign. The learned Senior Advocate further argued that all the Departments of the State Government, which were not discharging such essential sovereign functions, would fall within the purview of the definition of the word "industry" under Section 2(j) as regards the services rendered by them. He submitted that these departments discharging non-sovereign functions satisfy the triple test laid down by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply case. It was contended that if any activity was specifically excluded from the purview of the definition of the word "industry" under Section 2(j), then only can it be said that the said Act was not applicable. It was submitted that forestry was not a sovereign function and in any event, the employees were working on the projects such as nursery or roadside plantation undertaken by the Department, which activity amounted to industry within the meaning of section 2(j). It was contended that only the character of the activity undertaken was to be examined and it was immaterial who conducts it or whether it was conducted for profit or not. It was submitted that the activity of protecting and preserving forest was also a type of service rendered by the Department to the people which was not in exercise of any sovereign function. The augmentation of forest and protection of environment were also services rendered by the State Department to the people. Such work could be entrusted even to a private agency and therefore, it did not involve exercise of any sovereign function. The learned Senior Advocate further argued that the units or the projects of the forest department satisfy the triple test laid down in the Bangalore Water Supply case. The dominant nature test laid down in the said decision suggested that the forest department was not exercising any sovereign function and the entire department would be an industry, because, it satisfied all the tests applicable for applying the statutory definition of "industry", namely, it undertakes an organized activity involving co-operation between the employer and employees on a large scale and the activities were carried on for the purpose of production of goods and services for satisfying the wants of the people.

[h] The decision of the Supreme Court in Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Ashok Harikuni, reported in (2000)8 SCC 61, was cited to point out that it was held by the Supreme Court that, whether a particular power relates to sovereign functions depends on the nature of the power and the manner of its exercise. It was held that neither all governmental functions could be construed to be sovereign nor could all statutory services be termed either sovereign or be excluded from the purview of the Central Act. In paragraph 32 of the judgement, the Supreme Court held that: "Sovereign function in the new sense may have very wide ramification but essentially sovereign functions are primary inalienable functions which only the State could exercise." It was held that, broadly, it was taxation, eminent domain and police power which covered the field. It may cover its legislative functions, administration of law, eminent domain, maintenance of law and order, internal and external security, grant of pardon. It was held that, in view of the Preamble, Objects and Reasons and the Scheme of the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1996, the predominant object clearly being regulation and control of trading of agricultural produce, the Marketing Committee including its functionaries cannot be said to be performing functions which are sovereign in character, and most of its functions could be undertaken even by private persons and therefore, the Committee would fall within the definition of "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Act.

[d] The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1972(1)LLJ 374, holding that Chambal Hydel Irrigation Project of the Government of Madhra Pradesh was an industry under Section 2(j); the decision of the Bombay High Court in Executive Engineer, Yavatmal Medium Project Division v. Anant, Son of Yadao Murate, reported in 1999(1) LLN 155, holding that the Projects in question undertaken by the Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra fall within the definition of industry under Section 2(j) of the Act; decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Executive Engineer, central Public Works Department v. K. Madhukar Purushottam, reported in 1998(3) LLN 834, holding that Central Public Works Department is an industry; decision of the Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Nani Gopal Jana, reported in 1998(79) FLR 814, holding that even in departments of the Government discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, then they can be considered to come within Section 2(j) which defines industry under the Industrial Disputes Act; decision of the Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chandra, reported in 2003 LAB I.C. 8, holding that the Scheme of the forest department for creation of a park was not a part of inalienable sovereign function and such department of forest can be treated as industry; decision of the Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chandra, reported in 2003(1) LLN 619, holding that the activities undertaken by the forest department in the State of Rajasthan cannot be regarded as a part of sovereign function of the State and the Department of Forest in the State of Rajasthan was an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act; the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Zonal Chief Engineer, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Gorakhpur v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur, reported in 2001(4) LLN 1190, holding that Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam was an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j), and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Tungabhadra Board, Tungabhadra Dam, Hospet, Bellary District v. Easu and another, reported in 1999(4) LLN 1051, holding that Irrigation Department of the Government was an industry.

22. The contention that all welfare activities undertaken by the government will be "industry" within the meaning of section 2(j) was sought to be canvassed on the basis of the guideline contained in paragraph 161 of the judgement in Bangalore Water Supply at clause (IV)(b) under the head "the dominant nature test" which has been re-produced hereinabove, as per which, notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions, strictly understood, (alone) qualify for exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by the government or statutory bodies. This would mean that when the activity of the government satisfies the triple test and is industry under Section 2(j), only the sovereign functions i.e. primary inalienable constitutional functions will be exempted. Such exemption will not apply to the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by the State and which satisfy the triple ingredient test and are industries under Section 2(j). By no stretch of imagination can this clause be read to mean that all welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by the government or statutory bodies, ipso facto, fall in the definition of "industry" even if they do not satisfy the third ingredient of "production/distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants or wishes". We, therefore, cannot accept the extreme proposition canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that all non-sovereign functions of the State, including welfare activities, by themselves constitute "industry". We hold that, to qualify to be an "industry", any governmental activity must necessarily satisfy all the three ingredients including the important ingredient reflecting the purpose of the activity namely, "for the production and / or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes" as is understood in the economic sense indicated above in the context of which the guideline is obviously laid down. In Bangalore Water Supply, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the words in the definition of "industry", "cannot be allowed grotesquely inflationary play but must be read down to accord with the broad industrial sense of the nation's economic community of which labour is an integral part". (See paragraph 65 of the judgement).