These slides provide case brief of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R Rajappa case. The case covers: Citation Facts Procedural History Issues Principle Judgement Recent Developments

1. Topic What is Industry?
Case Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board v. R Rajappa
Presenter Jowairia Sajid
Enrollment 01-177161-018

2. 1. Case Name Bangalore Water-Supply v. R.
Rajappa & Others
2. Citation 1978 AIR 548, 1978 SCR (3) 207
3. Petitioner Bangalore Water Supply &
Sewerage Board
4. Respondent R. Rajappa & others
5. Date of Judgment 21/02/1978
6. Quorum Beg, M. Hameedullah (Cj),
Chandrachud, Y.V., Bhagwati, P.N.,
Krishnaiyer, V.R. & Tulzapurkar,
V.D., Desai, D.A. & Singh, Jaswant

3. Facts of the case
Bangalore Water Supply Board (BWSB) took disciplinary action against its
workers for misconduct.
Employees filed Claims Application No. 5172 under section 33C(2) of
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, alleging that such action violated the principle of
natural justice.
The appellant Board raised a preliminary objection before the Labor Court that
the ‘Board’ being a statutory body performing what is in essence a regal
function by providing the basic amenities to the citizens, is not an industry
within the meaning of the expression under section 2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act.

4. Procedural History
Board raised contention before labour court that it is a service institution which is
involved in rendering services to the public but is not carrying such business with
profit motive so it cannot be deemed as an industry. This objection was over-ruled.
Appellant Board filed two Writ ‘Petitions before the Karnataka High Court at
Bangalore. The Division Bench of that High Court dismissed the petitions and held
that the appellant Board is “industry” within the meaning ‘of the expression under
section 2(i) of the Industrial, Disputes Act, 1947
The appeal by Special Leave was filed before the Supreme Court and the court
entertained the appeal on the ground that there should be, comprehensive, clear
and conclusive declaration as to what is an industry under the Industrial Disputes
Act.

5. Issues of the case
Whether BWSB will fall under the definition of ‘Industry’ and in fact,
particularly the issue was what is an ‘Industry’ under Section 2(j) of the
Industrial Dispute Act?
Do clubs and other organizations whose general emphasis is not on
profit-making but fellowship and self-service fit into the definitional
circle?
Are governmental functions, strict sense, industrial and if not, what is
the extent of the immunity of instrumentalities of government?
Whether Charitable Institutions, university or Sovereign or Regal functions,
Municipal Corporations will be deemed as industry?

6. Principle Established
In this case, the court propounded that a “triple test”
criteria will be laid down in order to determine whether a
particular establishment falls under the domain of
industry or not. The test sets out three distinct aspects
that are mandatory for any establishment in order to be
considered as industry. All these three aspects should be
present simultaneously and should run concurrently.

7. Triple Test
That there should be a systematic activity and it is a kind of that activity means
any structured or organized activity that involves an element of planning, method,
continuity or persistence.
Such activity should be organized by co-operation between employer and
employee. The amount of involvement or the nature of work or designation is
not the indicator, the only pertinent requirement is the “employee-employer
relationship”.
The activity should be carried for the production and/or distribution of goods
and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or
religious) but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss.

8. Dominant Nature Test
Where there are complex set of activities, some of which
qualify for exemption while others not and involves
employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are
not 'workmen' or some departments are not productive of
goods and services if isolated, then regardless of the
predominant nature of the services the whole undertaking
will be 'industry' although those who are not 'workmen' by
definition may not benefit by the status.

9. Concluding Remarks
While this case settled a criteria and it closed all the
floodgates of uncertainties but this opened the Pandora
box of litigations by widening the definition of term
‘industry’. This severely caused damage in industrial
domain as the prevailing legal regime was completely
employee- centric. Due to these complexities, recently the
judgment was challenged in case of State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Jaibir Singh and matter was placed for
reconsideration of ‘Bangalore Case’. The decision of the
case is still pending.