SATISH CHAND SHARMA Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reference which was made to the Labour Court was for adjudication on a claim by the workman that he had been illegal terminated. The contention by the management was that it was not an 'industry' and that it was a research institute. Consequently, according to the management, the reference itself was not valid. The Labour Court found that the institute was not carrying on activities of commercial nature and relying on a decision in Physical Research Laboratories v. K.G.S. Hara : A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 1855, held that it was not an 'industry'. An expansive definition for the 'industry' was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. : 1998 (2) S.C.C. 213, The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to various types of industries to test the applicability, of the definition in all its facets. Perhaps no hard and fast rule could be laid down that of research institute cannot be industry or all charitable institutions cannot be industry. Economic conditions alone cannot be the deciding criteria. In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined at least 3 categories of charitable institutes: the first was, where the enterprises like any other, make profits but they were siphoned off for altruistic objectives. The second is one, where the institute makes no profit but hires the services of employees as on another like business, but the goods and services which are the output of the activity are made available at low or no cost to the indigent needy. The third, where the establishment is oriented on a humane mission which is fulfilled by men, who work not because they are paid wages, but because they share the passion for the cause and derive job satisfaction from their contributions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the first two categories would fall within the definition of 'industry', while the third may not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court posed the question, "can charity be an industry" and answered by stating "...the paradox can be unlocked only by examining the nature of activity of charity for there are charities and charities bed rocked on the grounds known, we must analyze the element that are charitable economic enterprises, established and maintained for satisfying human bones." This reasoning was applied in Workmen employed in Madras Pingrapole v. Madras Pingrapole, where a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that even purely humanitarian non -industrial institute could be an industry. Even running a hospital as a pure charity was found in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, 1961 L.L.J. 251 to be an industry. The character of activity was taken to be a determinative test. The question as to who conducts the activity was considered irrelevant. In Ah -medabad Textile Industries Research Association v. State of Bombay, (1960) 2 L.L.P. 720 the association was established to carry on research with respect to textile industry, jointly, for the benefit of its members by discovery of processes of manufacture, with a view to secure greater efficiency, rationalization and reduction of cost. This activity was held to be an industry. In this case, apart from the contention that the management was merely carrying on research in homeopathy, the attempt of the workman was also to show that he was himself employed as a messenger -cum -night watchman. The Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act and although the Ministry of Health, Union of India held control of the Society, it was not still directly governed by the Government of India and none of its activities par took the character of sovereign functions of the State. The activities were carried on by a Director, President, Vice President and governing body of Central Council. Even the activities were said to be not merely restricted to research in homeopathy, it admitted patients and treated them regularly. The institute was said to impart training to its employees and doctors in the field and undertake treatment of patients.

(2.) FOR all the reasons set out, I am of the view that the respondent is an industry to which the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicable.

(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of.