2. • Swaraj Ashram vs Industrial Tribunal U.P. 1979 SC
• Even if charitable but it workmen working under employer its an industry, Yes
• Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry vs R.K.
Mittal
• FICCI , Yes
• Gopalji Jan Shastri and Others vs State of Bihar 1983 SC
• Applying Banglore Water Supply Case 1978 SC Bihar Khadi Gramodyog Sangh
is an industry
• Workmen I.S. Institution vs I.S. Institution 1976 SC
• Indian standards Institution- SC held it bears the character of an industry
3. • Bombay Panjrole vs Workmen 1971 SC
• Income from donations and sale of milk , Yes
• Bhaskaran vs S.D.O 1982 Ker HC
• Post & Telegraph Department – industry, Yes
• Om Prakash vs EE S.Y.L Canal Division Co. 1985 ( P& H HC)
• Irrigation Department of Govt.- No
• But in Des Raj Etc. vs State of Punjab & Ors. 1988 SC
• Irrigation Department is an industry subjected to the test in Banglore Water
Supply Case 1978 SC
4. • Soundaranjan and others vs Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Labour 1994 Mad HC
• The petitions alleged that Petitioners are the casual labourers and they were abruptly
terminated from the service. A counter-affidavit was filed by the second respondent stating
that the functions of the Commandant, Ordnance Depot, Madras - 55 are under the Army
Ordinance Corps and governed by the Regulations pertaining to Army Ordinance Services
issued by the Ministry of Defence. Held: merely because it is a Military Department
maintained under the exercise of the regal sovereign functions of the Central Government,
the establishment does not cease to be an industry if it is severable from the other unit.
5. Similar View was taken in:
• UOI vs Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal and
Others MP HC 1995
• The learned Judge has considered the definition of "industry" and held that the definition is
of very wide import and should be interpreted in a manner so as not to whittle down but to
advance the object of the Act and came to the conclusion that the Engineers Store Depot was
a defence establishment under the Ministry of Defence and manufactured nuts, bolts,
brackets, etc for running repairs and its functions related primarily to the holding and
handling of stores required for defence purposes. In that case, the learned Judge, has also
held that merely because it is a Military Department maintained under the exercise of the
regal sovereign functions of the Central Government, the establishment does not cease to be
an industry.
6. • The Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa, (1978-I-LLJ-
349) exhaustively discussed the scope of "industry" which is defined
under Section 2(j) of the Act and held as follows (Para 11 :
• "... Sovereign functions, strictly understood, (alone) qualify for exemption, not
the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or
statutory bodies..." Even in departments 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)..."
7. • EE National Highways vs Industrial Tribunal Bhubaneshwar & Another
Orissa HC
• Held: regal function shall be confined to legislative power, administration of
law and judicial power. In deciding whether an activity is industry or not the
nature of actual function and the pattern of organised activity is decisive.
Judged in the light of National Highways Division of the Works Department, if
the Government is an industry as tolls and taxes are collected over the
bridges constructed by the Highways Divison.
• Chief Conservator of Forest & Another vs Jagganath Moruti Kondhare
1996 SC
• Scheme of work undertaken by the Government Department could not be
regarded as a sovereign function of the State. Therefore, Forest Department is
an Industry.
8. • All India Radio vs Santosh Kumar 1998 SC
• The functions which are carried on by All India Radio and Doordarshan cannot
be said to be confined to sovereign functions as they carry on commercial
activity for profit by getting commercial advertisements telecast or broadcast
through their various kendras and stations by charging fees.
• Mahamadhka Gajika Baloch vs Manager, Panchasara Jain Derasar
1994 SC
• Jain Temple is an industry
9. • Akhil Raj Rajya Hand Pump Mistries Sangathan Banswara and another vs
State of Rajasthan and Others 1994 RJ HC
• Yes Panchayat samiti squarely falls within the definition of 'Industry' as
defined by Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as elucidated by the
apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (1978-I-LLJ-349) Para 18 Important
• Mahesh Bhargava vs State of MP and others
• giving legal aid and legal advice, are functions which any private person can
and may undertake. They are not inalienable functions of the Government
necessary for governance. Those functions may help to secure justice. But by
exercise of those functions the Board does not
10. administer justice. Functions which help to secure justice are not functions constituting
administration of justice. Those functions of the Board are, therefore, in no sense,
sovereign functions, or even instance of exercise of sovereign functions delegated to
the Board by the Government The Board cannot, therefore, justly claim exemption
from the scope of the definition of 'industry' on that score. Para 16
• R Srinivasa Rao vs Labour Court, Hyderabad and another 1990 AP HC
• The questions that arise in this batch of writ petitions are whether M/s.
National Remote Sensing Agency, hereinafter described as 'NRSA' is an
industry within the meaning of S. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Court
Held that N.R.S.A. satisfies the tests laid down by the Supreme Court and that
it is an industry under S. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act
11. • Karnani Properties Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal 1990 SC
• The findings recorded by the High Court, with which we find no reason to
disagree, it is evident that the activity carried on by the appellant falls within
the ambit of the expression "industry" defined in Section 2(j) of the Act as
construed by this Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board case (
Page 8 and 9 )
• Dattatraya Gopal Paranjape vs Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh & Others
1995 Bom HC
• Whether a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act is an 'industry'
within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,?
• The First Respondent Trade Union is an 'industry' within the meaning of
section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12. • Harihar Bahinipatt vs State of Orissa 1965
• . The main point in this writ petition is whether the petitioners
working under Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee as
Daffadars, Barkandajes, Ballav Gudias (who prepare Ballav and Kora
which are offered to the deities) form an 'industry' within the
meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
• The dispute between the management of Shri Jagannath Temple,
Puri, and the petitioners who claim to be workmen represented by
Jagannath Temple Employees Union is over the arrears of salary
which the management refused to pay the petitioners. The
petitioners' Union raised the matter before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner for conciliation which ultimately failed. Thereafter in
due course the petitioners moved the State Government for referring
the dispute for adjudication.
13. • The State Government by their Order dated April 14, 1964 decided that there
is no case for reference of the dispute for adjudication since, according to the
Government, the dispute between the management of Puri Jagannath Temple
and its workmen does not come within the purview of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. It is this order which the petitioners challenge in this writ petition
and pray for a decision on the State of Orissa to refer the dispute for
adjudication under Section 10 of the Act.
• the Government was prima facie satisfied--and rightly--that the petitioners
did not form an industry under Section 2(j).
• Para 2 and 27
• A.S. Production Agencies vs Industrial Tribunal Haryana AIR 1979 SC 170
• While ascertaining the amplitudes of the expression undertaking in the
definition of the industry a restricted meaning has to be assigned to it.
Viewed in this light the painting section of factory was not an industry.
14. • Raja Ratna Sethi vs Ashok Bhasin 1982 LAB IC 338
• Gurukul is not an industry
• Gram Panchayat vs Presiding officer Labour Court Nagpur and others 1991
BOM HC
• Pound Keeper of the village is not a workman and the activities in respect of those
functions are not industry.
• UOI vs Jainairain Singh 1996 SC
• Central Ground Water Board is not an industry.
• State of U.P. vs Arun Kumar Singh 1996 SC
• District Rural Development Agency works including Jawahar Rozgar Yojna not an
industry. Similarly Profession of Chartered Accountant and Auditors’ is not an
industry( Traser and Ross vs. Sambasiva Iyer AIR 1959 Mad 134)
15. • H.K. Makwana vs State of Gujrat and Others 1995 GUJ HC
• Relief Work provided in the case of Natural Calamities cannot be said to be
employment in industry and it is neither a business or trade, nor a systematic
activity but carried in casual manner.
• State of Gujrat and others vs Pratam Singh Narsinh Parmar 2001 SC
• HC – FOREST DEPARTMENT- industry
• SC-There was no assertion by the person concerened who was the clerk and
terminated that the Forest Department was an industry or not. Therefore in
the absence of such assertion HC erred in the law in holding that the FOREST
DEPARTMENT could be an industry. Therefore the challenge to termination of
service on ground of non compliance with the section 25-F of the Act was not
sustainable.
16. • Bharat Bhawan Trust vs Bharat Bhawan Artists’ Association and Another
2001 SC
• Trust enganged in promotion of art and preservation of artistic talent. Such activities
are not for large scale production therefore not an industry.
• Marathawada Sarwa Shramik Sangathna vs Assistant Director, Department
Society Forestry Porbhani 2002 Bom HC
• Order of Industrial Tribunal was challenged that the Department of Social Forestry
Court is not an industry. High Court accepted the contention and observed that the
Department of Social Forestry Court is not an industry
• State of Gujrat vs Deenanji Bidhaji Thakore 2003 GUJ HC
• Irrigation Department of the State Government was not an industry under Section 2
(j) of the Act.
