Skip to main content


3. Bangalore Water Supply vs. A. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 SC 553.

 Ref: AIR 1978 SC 553

Sub:- This case is based on Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Facts of the case: -

1. A.Rajappa was the employee of the Banglore Water Sup- ply and Sewerage Board.

2. A labour dispute arose between A.Rajappa and Bangalore Water Supply which could not be solved peacefully and in order to decide this dispute, an appeal was filed by the Bangalore Water Supply before the Supreme Court for spe- cial leave.

Supreme Court:-

The Supreme Court had in all total nine disputes before it which included eight special leave appeal and one special application in which there were labour disputes between management and employees. This matter was tried upon by a special bench of seven judges in which Chief Justice Shri Beg was one of them.

The main question before the Supreme Court was whether the definition of 'Industry' provided in Section 2(J) of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947 should be taken as in a narrow meaning or it should be considered in its wide term.

Hon'ble Court held that the meaning of the definition of 'Indus- try' given in Section 2(J) should be considered in its wide term, not in its narrow meaning.

According to the Hon'ble Court :-

The nature of the work of such a venture depends on the relation between its employer and employees and in this regard attention will be focused on the work of the ven- ture, not on other facts.

The purpose of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is to peacefully settle the disputes and bring har- mony between the employers and workmen.

If such an organisation is a trading or business organisation, it will not be out of the scope of an industry only because it is a charity unit. The Court held that the correct definition of 'Industry' has been given it the case of "Banerjee."

From the perusal of the result of the discussion that if a cooperative venture which is engaged in a occupation, pro- fession, educational, cooperative research an entertaiment of any kind, if it stands the test of being an industry, only then it will come under the category of an industry.

If such a venture, which is originally run by its members without any employee or which is run with the services of very few employees and for small works, services of em- ployees are taken, then that will not come into the cat- egory of an industry. Thus, ventures run by lawyers, doc- tors and inmates of an ashram will not come under the definition of an industries.

Where several mixed activities of a venture are carried out, out of which some activities come under the defnition of an industry but some other activities are not so, then the whole of the venture is an industry.

The sovereign activities of the administration or bodies established under this statute will be free from the definition of the industry but public welfare or economic activities are not free from it.

If any of the sovereign departments is such an unit that come under the defintion of an industry and it is substan- tially taken separate, such a unit may also be taken as an industry under Section 2 (J).

Any of the category of ventures which come under the scope of this act by way of constitutional and competent legislation may be given an exeption from its effect. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments and facts, the Supreme Court, refusing to accept the narrow meaning of the definition of the industry, has recognised the wide definition of the industry.

Judgment: Appeal dismissed.

Law points :-

1. The purpose of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is to peacefully settle the disputes and bring harmony between the employers and employees.

2. The definition of 'Industry' provided in Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 should be considered in its wide term.

3. The nature of a venture decides the criteria for the defini- tion of an industry.

4. Where if some of the employees of equal status of a venture come under the definition of a 'Labourer', then the whole of the venture will be considered as an industry.

5. Sovereign activities will be considered as an exempt from the definition of an industry but the government bodies which are run for public welfare and from the economic point of view - they will not be exempt from the definition of an industry.


Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut

1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref : AIR 1970 SC 1906 Sub :- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Facts of the case :- 1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent. 2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship. 3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it. 4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day. 5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning. 6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river.