Definition of Industry and Case Comment
Industry:- Sec.2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines ‘industry’ as
any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and
includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or
avocation of workmen”.
An industry exists only when there is relationship between employers and
employees, the former is engaged in business, trade, undertaking, manufacture
or calling of employers and the latter is engaged in the calling, service,
employment, handicraft or industrial occupation and avocation.
Management of Safdurjung hospital vs Kuldip Singh Sethi
In reply to the petition the Management contended that Kuldip Singh Sethi was
not a workman but a Government servant governed by the Conditions of
Service for Government Servants and hence he could not invoke the Industrial
Disputes Act since the Safdarjung Hospital was not an industry. It was held that
a place of treatment of patients run as a department of the government was not
an industry because it was a part of the functions of the government. Charitable
hospitals run by Government or even private associations cannot be included in
the definition of industry because they have not embarked upon economic
activities analogous to trade or business. If hospitals, nursing home or a
dispensary is run as a business in a commercial way, there may be elements of
industry.
Dhanrajgiri hospital vs the Workmen
The Tribunal did not consider the materials placed before it fully in support of
the finding that the appellant is engaged in an industry within the meaning of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even so, the finding recorded by it is that the
activities of the appellant are not mainly educational but the Hospital was
established in 1930 for the benefit of the public of Sholapur and its main
function is to look after the patients availing of the facilities afforded by the
Hospital.
National Union of Commercial employee’s vs MR Meher
The State Government referred the dispute in regard to the bonus for the two
years 1956 and 1957 for adjudication before an Industrial Tribunal under
Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (No. XIV of 1947) (hereinafter
called the Act). Before the Tribunal, the respondents raised a preliminary
objection. They urged that the profession followed by them was not an industry
within the meaning of the Act, and so the dispute raised against them by the
appellants was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act; the
contention was that the dispute not being an industrial dispute under the Act, the
reference made by the Government was incompetent and so, the Tribunal had
no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this dispute. The Tribunal upheld the
preliminary objection and recorded its conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the dispute as it was not an industrial dispute.
University of Delhi vs Ramnath
The respondents by separate petitions applied before the industrial Tribunalfor
the award of retrenchment benefits. The appellants resisted the petitions on the
preliminary ground that they did not constitute an “industry" under S. 2 (j) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court held that the work of
imparting education is more of a mission and a vocation than profession or trade
and thus, university is not an industry.
Madras Gymkhana Club employee’s union vs Management
In Madras Gymkhana Club Employees’ Union vs Gymkhana Club (([1967]
2LLJ720 ,729(SC) per Hidyatulah J.)), the Supreme Court attempted to keep
two notions concerning the Employees and the Employees apart, and expressed
the opinion that the denotation of the ‘Industry’ is to be found in the first part
relating to the Employers and the connotation of the term is to be included in
the second part relating to the workman and concluded that ‘non-profit making
members club’ are not employed in Trade or Industry. In this case, the court
held that the club is not an industry.
Cricket Club of India v Bombay labour union
In respect of various demands made by the workmen relating to classification of
employees, dearness allowance, leave facilities, payment for overtime,
permanency, shift allowance, etc. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf
of the Club that it is not an industry and, consequently, the provisions of the Act
were inapplicable and no reference could be competently made under sec.10(2)
of the Act. The Tribunal rejected this preliminary objection holding that the
Club came within the definition of "industry" in s. 2(j) of the Act and made a
direction that the case be set down for hearing on merits.
DN Banerjee v PR Mukherjee
In DN Banerjee vs [Link] ((AIR 1953 SC 58Z) the question that was
raised was whether Municipality is an Industry. . The Supreme Court held that
though Municipal activity could not be regarded as “business or trade’ it would
fall within the scope of the expression “undertaking” and it is an industry. The
municipal undertaking engaged in public utility services without profit motive
falls within the definition of industry.
NIKHIL V
20MBA1054
