Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.37 seconds)D. N. Banerji vs P. R. Mukherjee And Others on 5 December, 1952
24. Another test suggested by the learned council may be scrutinised. It is said that unless there is a be quid pro quo for the service, it cannot be an industry. This is the same argument, namely, that the service must be in the nature of trade in a different garb. this Court in D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee ([1953] S.C.R. 302) has held that neither the investment of capital or the existence of profitearning motive seems to be a sine qua non or necessary element in the modern conception of industry. The conception that unless the public who are benefited by the services pay in cash for the services rendered to them, the services so rendered cannot be industry is based upon an exploded theory. As observed by Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., "the conflicts between capital and labour have now to be determined more from the standpoint of status than of contract".
Baroda Borough Municipality vs Its Workmen on 13 November, 1956
29. We have extracted this passage only because the observations are opposite to the discussion on hand but not to express our concurrence with the conclusion drawn in that case. The question of bonus does not fall to be considered in the present appeal.