INTRODUCTION
The Industrial Disputes Act was designed to provide a mechanism for the resolution of industrial disputes, which had become a common feature in the post-war period due to industrial unrest, where difficulties resulted from constant fighting between employers and employees. The result was a decrease in output. The Bangalore Supply and Sewerage Board v R. Rajappa and others overturned a number of prior Supreme Court rulings, but it eased the burden for legislators by putting key issues in the proper context, with major policy matters best addressed by the legislature rather than the judicial process. This article focus is on the study of this particular decision.
CASE DETAILS
Case Name: Bangalore Water-Supply Vs R. Rajappa and Others.
Complainant: Bangalore water supply and Sewerage board, etc.
Respondent: R. Rajappa and others.
Reference: 1978 AIR 548, 1978 SCR (3) 207.
Date of Verdict: 21st February 1978.
Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah (Cj), Chandrachud, Y.V., Bhagwati, P.N., Krishnaiyer, V.R. & Tulzapurkar, V.D., Desai, D.A. & Singh, Jaswant.
ISSUE
1. Definition of industry according to Section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
2. Whether municipalities, hospitals, clubs, charitable institutions, universities, professional firms, voluntary organisations or sovereign functions etc are industries.
FACTS
The Appellant Board penalised the defendant staff for misbehaviour, and various sums were collected from them. As a result, they filed Claims Application No. 5/72 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming that the punishment was imposed in violation of the law. Natural justice principles have been violated. The appellant Board filed a preliminary objection with the Labour Court, claiming that the Board, as a statutory body executing a regal role by providing basic facilities to residents, is not an industry within the sense of section 2(j) of the Act. As a result of the Industrial Disputes Act, the employees were not considered workers, and the Labour Court ruled against them. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear the workers' claim. Following the overruling of this objection, the appellant Board filed two Writ ‘Petitions with the court. Bangalore is home to the Karnataka High Court. "The chances of confusion from the crop of cases in an area where the common man has to understand and apply the law, and the desirability that there should be, thorough, unambiguous and decisive pronouncement as to what is an industry under the law," the Special Leave petitions argue. The Industrial Disputes Act in its current form" was referred to a bigger bench for review.
DECISION
It was decided that the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board would be counted in the definition of industry, and the court justified this decision by providing a more thorough meaning of industry. The term 'industry,' as defined in Section 2(j) and described by Banerjee, has a broad meaning:
a) Where systematic activity that is structured by employer-employee cooperation, for the manufacture and/or distribution of commodities and services intended to meet human wants and desires (not spiritual or religious in nature). There is an 'industry' in that enterprise, which includes material products or services targeted to spiritual joy.
b) Whether the venture is in the public, joint private, or another sector, the absence of a profit motive or a gainful objective is irrelevant.
c) The true focus is functional, with the nature of the activity serving as the deciding factor. The importance of the employer-employee relationship is highlighted.
d) If the organisation is a trade or company, charity does not make it any less such as bringing life to the project. Despite the fact that Section 2(j) uses terms with the greatest amplitude in its two limbs, their meaning cannot be determined to be amplified to the point of overreach.
As explained in Banerjee and in this judgement, 'undertaking', as well as service, calling, and the like must undergo a contextual and associational shrinkage. This leads to the conclusion that any organised activity including the triple parts, even if it is not commerce or business, is nevertheless considered organised 'industry' (if the nature of the activity, i.e. the employer-employee relationship, bears this out) a similarity to what we find in commerce or trade. This incorporates 'industry' into the equation. Activities, callings, and services are 'analogous' to carrying on a business or providing a service business. All features, except the methods for carrying out the activity, i.e. in establishing employer-employee cooperation, may be dissimilar. It makes no difference if there is a parallel in terms of employment.
CONCLUSION
By ruling in the Bangalore Water Supply case, the Apex Court has restored judicial discipline and thereby avoided an unnecessary court-initiated upheaval in the domain of labour law. The Court had granted a broad meaning of "industry" under the Act, and the case has been applied as law throughout the country ever since. The broad definition of "industry" has allowed both the employer and the employee to raise difficulties, with one attempting to escape the Act's clutches by avoiding the definition, and the other bringing it within it in order to earn advantages under it.
The extensive interpretation given by the Bangalore Water Supply case was limited by Parliament, which changed the definition of "industry" in 1982. Hospitals, dispensaries, educational, scientific, research, or training institutes, as well as charity and social philanthropic institutions, were all excluded from the new definition. It was also suggested that the government's sovereign functions, such as atomic energy, space, and defence research, be excluded. A separate organisation was proposed to address issues for all of these institutions. The succeeding governments, even after the legislative decree, have been unwilling to bring the said law into force by merely issuing a notice.
REFERENCES
1.https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Parita-Goyal-1.pdf
2.http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/533/Bangalore-Water-SupplyCase.html
3.https://taxguru.in/chartered-accountant/bangalore-water-supply-a-rajappa-air-1978-sc-553.html
4.https://lawtimesjournal.in/bangalore-water-supply-sewerage-board-etc-vs-rrajappa-ors/