# Union v. Managemellf

- **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 202
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. J331 of 1966
- **Bench:** G.K. Mitter, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-v-managemellf-5346
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

Industrial Dispuies Act, 1947-Section 2(j) -'Jndustry'-A
Panjrapole started initially as a charitable ins1itution b11t later
organised commercially-'-lf "Industry".
B
The appellant J'an.irapole was staited in 1834 as a charitable insti- c
tution for the caie and protection of animals. It expanded its aclivities
consi._d~rably i>yer tl'le years. The institution gradually diversified its
obk!'ts from only tending to the sick, infirm a11d unwanted cattle by
adopti11g a policy of keeping cattle not merely for their own sake but
fm: the sa,ke of improving the cattle population in order to get large
q\lantities of .mill> for sale ,an<l thereby get an income which would
augment its soim::j:S. The instittJtion was using stud bulls for the purpose I)
of"breeding healthy c.attle including cows sp as to be able to make a
sizable income from the sale of milk. The value of the milk sold was
considerable compared to the value of milk supplied to the sick and
inlirJ!I. cattle of the institution. The expenses for
treating the sick
animals was l!)so yery little compared to the total expenses of the lnstltm!.on. A l;uge number of workers were employed at the institution.
They raised an industrial dispute in relation to their wages and other
E
S!;rvice benefits. The dispute was ·referred for a<ljudication to the In-
. 1.lus(fial Tribunal. It was contended by the Appellant that the Institμtion was a charitable institution and therefore was not an 'industry'
wi.tbJn the meaning of s. 2(j) of the Industrial Pisputes Act. The Tribu-
~ fo11nd that the activities of the institution in connection with its
movable property and collection and sale of milk to be an "in<lustry"
while the maintenance of la111e, infirm and sick cows, dogs and otber
1''
anim~ls was hel<l not to ~onstitute an "industry".
A petition under Art. 227 was moved in the High Court fqr quashinjl the .award of the Industrial Tribunal but the same was summarily
r~Jected. Dismissing the appeal,
JJ,EJ.,D: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bombay
G
PaPirap9le is an "Industry" within the meaning of Sec. 2(j) of the lndustri;tl Qisputes Act. The activities of the Panjrapole, though charitable
at the begipning, was not exclusively so in later years, and the later
activities show that it was carried on as a business concern. Even the
vaJ~e Pf tile milk suppl~ for the last 3 or 4 years itself was well in excess
>Of Rs. 2 lal<:hs per anrnim app tbis ~oμld pnly be possible if the cows
11
amt !>!llfaloes h.ad been kept apd maintaineil not l)ler0ly to l!'eep the111
ilivi: but witb tl1' i4ea of J$tting 11s 111uc!i producti!:m out of them as
p9§si!lle lllJ.!I tbe J>a11jrapoll: was riln Ii~ 11 4air;y lirm. (nni:)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE v. WORKMEN (Mitter, J.)
203
State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, (1960] 2 S .. C.R.
866, Safdar Jung Hospital, Ne.w Delhi v. K. S. Sethi & Ma11agem,ent
of M/s T. B. Hospital, New Delhi v. The Workmen, A.I.R. )970 S.C. 1407.
Gymkhana
Club
Union
v.
Managemellf,
[1968]
1
S.C.R.
742,
La/it Hari
Ayurvedic College Pharmacy v. Its Workers U1Jio11,
A.l.R. 1960 S.C. 1261, Madras Panjrapole v. Labour Court, [1960] 2 L.J;.l
686, Workmen Employed in Madras Panjrapole v. Madras Panjrapolc
(1962]2 L.L.J. 472, Cricket Club v. Labour Unicn, (1969] J S.C.R. 6CO,
Harinagar Cane Firm v. State of Bihar, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 45S, r.e,(err,ed .to.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,950 of 48,900. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39950 for what follows._

202
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE, BHULESHWAR
A
l'.
THE WORKMEN AND ANOTHER
Augμst 16, 1971
{G.K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ,]
Industrial Dispuies Act, 1947-Section 2(j) -'Jndustry'-A
Panjrapole started initially as a charitable ins1itution b11t later
organised commercially-'-lf "Industry".
B
The appellant J'an.irapole was staited in 1834 as a charitable insti- c
tution for the caie and protection of animals. It expanded its aclivities
consi._d~rably i>yer tl'le years. The institution gradually diversified its
obk!'ts from only tending to the sick, infirm a11d unwanted cattle by
adopti11g a policy of keeping cattle not merely for their own sake but
fm: the sa,ke of improving the cattle population in order to get large
q\lantities of .mill> for sale ,an<l thereby get an income which would
augment its soim::j:S. The instittJtion was using stud bulls for the purpose I)
of"breeding healthy c.attle including cows sp as to be able to make a
sizable income from the sale of milk. The value of the milk sold was
considerable compared to the value of milk supplied to the sick and
inlirJ!I. cattle of the institution. The expenses for
treating the sick
animals was l!)so yery little compared to the total expenses of the lnstltm!.on. A l;uge number of workers were employed at the institution.
They raised an industrial dispute in relation to their wages and other
E
S!;rvice benefits. The dispute was ·referred for a<ljudication to the In-
. 1.lus(fial Tribunal. It was contended by the Appellant that the Institμtion was a charitable institution and therefore was not an 'industry'
wi.tbJn the meaning of s. 2(j) of the Industrial Pisputes Act. The Tribu-
~ fo11nd that the activities of the institution in connection with its
movable property and collection and sale of milk to be an "in<lustry"
while the maintenance of la111e, infirm and sick cows, dogs and otber
1''
anim~ls was hel<l not to ~onstitute an "industry".
A petition under Art. 227 was moved in the High Court fqr quashinjl the .award of the Industrial Tribunal but the same was summarily
r~Jected. Dismissing the appeal,
JJ,EJ.,D: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bombay
G
PaPirap9le is an "Industry" within the meaning of Sec. 2(j) of the lndustri;tl Qisputes Act. The activities of the Panjrapole, though charitable
at the begipning, was not exclusively so in later years, and the later
activities show that it was carried on as a business concern. Even the
vaJ~e Pf tile milk suppl~ for the last 3 or 4 years itself was well in excess
>Of Rs. 2 lal<:hs per anrnim app tbis ~oμld pnly be possible if the cows
11
amt !>!llfaloes h.ad been kept apd maintaineil not l)ler0ly to l!'eep the111
ilivi: but witb tl1' i4ea of J$tting 11s 111uc!i producti!:m out of them as
p9§si!lle lllJ.!I tbe J>a11jrapoll: was riln Ii~ 11 4air;y lirm. (nni:)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE v. WORKMEN (Mitter, J.)
203
State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, (1960] 2 S .. C.R.
866, Safdar Jung Hospital, Ne.w Delhi v. K. S. Sethi & Ma11agem,ent
of M/s T. B. Hospital, New Delhi v. The Workmen, A.I.R. )970 S.C. 1407.
Gymkhana
Club
Union
v.
Managemellf,
[1968]
1
S.C.R.
742,
La/it Hari
Ayurvedic College Pharmacy v. Its Workers U1Jio11,
A.l.R. 1960 S.C. 1261, Madras Panjrapole v. Labour Court, [1960] 2 L.J;.l
686, Workmen Employed in Madras Panjrapole v. Madras Panjrapolc
(1962]2 L.L.J. 472, Cricket Club v. Labour Unicn, (1969] J S.C.R. 6CO,
Harinagar Cane Firm v. State of Bihar, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 45S, r.e,(err,ed .to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeal No.
J331 of 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated J;rnu.ary
20, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 54 of 1966.
·
D. V. Patel and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
G. P. Pai, Bhajan Ram Rakhiani and R. [{. [{]1am1a,
for respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J. The question involved in this appeal py
special leave from. an order of the Bombay High Coufj:
rejecting summarily a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ for examining the legality of the award made
by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra on July 27, 1965
and published in the Maharashtra Gazette on August 19,
19o5 and for quashing the same appears to be one of first
impression so far as· tl).is Court is concerned.
• m: appellant before this Court is an institution which
came into existence as far back as 1834. It originated in
the desire. of certain Hindu and Parse~ gentlemen of the
City of Bombay to put a stop to the practice of killing of
stray dogs by the sepoys of the East India Company. the·
deed of October 18, 1834 shows that certain Hindus,
Parsees and Mahajuns had resolved to start a Panjrapole
with suitable buildings by raising subscription and alsp
by promising to pay certain fees on stated mere.anti~
commodities to the Panjrapole to be established f9r the
keeping of stray cattle and other animals and for protecting their lives. This was followed by a deed of de~larat4m
ot trust .executed on 2nd November, 1850. This shows
that the institution mentioned in the earlier document had
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] l S.C.R.
been established and the management of its . funds had A
been placed in the hands of certain Banians under the
superintendence of Sir Jamshedjee Jeejeebhoy and that
out of the surplus funds collected Rs. 75,057/- had been
invested in the purchase of Government Promissory notes.
The trustees were to stand possessed of the said notes
B
and interest and dividends thereof upon trust for the use
and benefit of the said institution.
·
On 2nd November, 1850 a deed of assignment and
declaration of trust in favour of panjrapole was executed
by Sir Jamshedjee Jeejeebhoy to Khimchand Motichand. c
This document shows that a part of the surplus funds had
been invested in the purchase of several pieces or parcels
of fands, houses etc. and the new trustees were to stand
possessed of the s.ame upon trust for the use and benefit
of the said institution. Another trust deed was· executed
011 5th September, 1851 by Khimchand Motichand, Sir
D
Jamshedjee Jeejeebhoy and others. This document shows
that the institution was then possessed of considerable
wealth comprising of Government promissory
notes,
houses, lands and other immovable estate in the Islands of
Bombay, besides cash balances.
E
The funds of the institution appear to have been augmented further under a deed of 10th June, 1871. According to this document certain charitably disposed persons,
Hindus and Parsees, had raised a fund for releasing animah
in Surat meant for slaughter on the occasion of Bakri-Id
F
and Id-E-Kurbani. The trustees of the said fund being
desirous of transferring the sums in their hands with all
accumulations of interest, income etc. and also the trust
thereof to the trustees· of the Bombay Panjrapole had
requested the trustees of the said Panjrapole to become
the trustees of Surat Bakri-Id fund to which the latter
G
had agreed. This document shows further that the trustees
of the Bombay Panjrapole had agreed to use the said funds
towards the purchasing, releasing and redeeming from
slaughter some, of the cows, sheep and other animals
intended or likely to be sacrificed at Surat on the Bakrid
or Id-Kurbani occasions and for conveyance of the aniH
mals so purchased to be kept there according to the custom
and rules of that institution.
In 1915 the Government
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE v. WORKMEN (Mitter, J.)
205
declared the institution as an infirmary under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (IX of 1890).
It would appear that the Bombay Panjrapole expanded
its activities considerably over the years and had besides
its original seat at Bombay, branches at three other places
viz., at Raita, Rhiwandi and Chembur Cattle, birds and
other animals were kept and maintained at all these places.
A very large number of persons was pursuing manifold activities at the said places. Latterly the workers of the
institution were not satisfied with their wage scales and
other service conditions.
On the basis of the report
submitted by the Conciliation Officer under sub-s.(4) of
s.12 of the Industrial Disputes Act the Government of
Maharashtra referred the dispute for adjudication to the
Tribunal constituted uhder a Government notification.
An order of reference was made on 25th June, 1963 and
the heads of disputes were, the wages, privilege, sick and
casual leave, bonus, gratuity and reinstatement of certain
workmen.
In the written statement filed by Panjrapole it was
stated inter alia :-
(a) The main aims and objects of the institution were
purely charitable.
Whatever ineome the institution had
was not all to be distributed either to the donors or the
trustees.
It was wholly and solely for the maintenance
and treatment of animals of the Bombay Panjrapole. To
aehieve the above objects the means to be adopted were :
(i) maintenance of a shelter house for aged and
unserviceable animals;
(ii) the feeding and treatment of all animals entrusted to the institution either by the owners
anxious to, pension their old animals or reseued
by philanthropic persons from the hands of
butchers and the protection of animals remanded by magistrates;
(iii) the breeding of bulls under ideal and sanitary
conditions;
·
(iv) the maintenance of a dairy farm with special
attention to proper feeding, accommodation and
water supply, the proceeds to go to the benefit
of other animals of the Panjrapole; and
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 1 S.C.H.
(v) bringing up of calves of the young cows under
healthy conditions .
A
. (b) The Managing Committee of trustees of the imtillltion was advised that in fulfilment of their primary and
c>nly object of maintaining sick and iniirm cattle and dog>
etc. it was ne•:essary that they should liavc healthy food
B
and nutrition.
Since milk from outside would not fuliil
that condition it was decided to upgrade the infirm cattle
and rear them into good animals so as to get good and
pure milk for the inmates of the Panjrapole.
Thus the
milk that was produced and remained smplus after feedc
ing the old cows, motherless calves and dogs and other·
such animals was sold to members or public instead of
being thrown off.
The income derived therefrom wa-o
again utilised only after maintenance of the Panjrapole
animals. The sale proceeds of the milk was never utilised
nor meant for the benefit or the profit of the donors of
trustees nor was it produced and sold for the purpose or
Cf
satisfying human needs or desires or with any object or
rendering material service to the community.
,c)
The cows which yielded milk were kept by cne
Panjrapole till the end of their lives.
The milk derived
from them could only be considered as natural and inciE
dental product in the maintenance of cows.
It was submitted on the basis of the above rnat essentially the object with which the institution received animals
was not for doing service to their owners or others but
to the animals themselves. The Tribunal examined metiF
culously the activities of the institution over a number
of years.
The workers served various interrogatories
on the trustees to elicit from the various facts relating
to the income by way of rent from building etc. the income
from milk and milk products, the income from sale of
other commodities, the number and categories of animals
G
m the Panjrapole, the number of animals, if any, purchased, the number of dry and wet cows owned by the
Panjrapole and the number of stud bulls either purchased
by or bred at the Panjrapole for the last ten years. The
society answered all the particulars.
The chart below
prepared by the respondent shows the total cattle strength
11
of the Panjrapole in all its four branches comprising
of productive '<lnimals (whether milch
1cows. milch buffaloes.·
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE V. WORKMEN (Mitter, J.)
2'0'7
A stud bulls arid working bullocks), the number of unpro
ductive animals, including cows, buffaloes, buffalo calves,
heifers and calves and bullocks. The chart was compiled
from the documents disclosed by the appellant and con-·
tains the figures for the years 1958 to 1962 :-
B
Total .strength in the follo\ving years.
I
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Total strength
Bo1nbay
149
I 17
150
201
214
c
Raita
833
595
'i08
604
57;s
Bhiwandi
501
653
503
408
426
Chambur
191
233
272
275
2811
-~--------------------------
Total
1,674
1.598
1.533
1,488
1,459
D
Sick. old and i11finn ·
Botnbay
Raita
32
19
10
16
3l
Bhiwandi
424
364
132
150
171
Chambur
E
Total
466 25% 383 20~~ 142 10% 166 10% 202 fS~~
Young ani111a/s
Bombay
Raita
181
44
120
50
36
Bhiwandi
6
47
5
99
59
Claambur
56
87
'19
93
100
Tot:il
243
178
204
242
185
Other cattle 1101 sick
G
Bombay
149
117
150
201
214
Raita
620
532
488
538
47l
Bhhvandf
71
242
366
159
196'
Chambur
135
146
193
182
J\rt1
Total.
975
1.037
1,197
1,080
1-,062:
fl'
The following chart was prepared· by the resp()il<ients
showing the vafoes of the milk suppliea to' the animats a~'
2011
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 1 S.C.R.
:also the amounts fetched by sale of the surplus milk for
A
the same years.
Year
1959
1960
'1961
:1962
Chart. •
Own consumpSale
tion.
Rs.
Rs.
2
3
2,681
1,49,854
1,314
3,995
5,256
6,716
5,475
17,447
1,69,465
1,755
6,570
2,686
11,011
2,046
3,286
3,504
2,13,117
Total
Percentage
Rs.
of sale
B
approximately
5
1,53,849
2·6%
c
1,86,912
D
2,24,118
5%
E
8,836
2,23,095
2,31,931
4%
1,954
4,555
3,650
10,159
2,30,043
2,40,202
4%
F
The facts found by the Tribunal may be summarised
:as follows :- ·
(I) At the end of the year 1962 there were altogether,
G
445 cows, 48 bulls, bullocks and oxen,. other cattle (cows
.and bullocks) 508, calves 495, dogs 160, goats and sheep
32, horses 12, hares 18, cocks, hens and ducks 18 and
parrots 8 : the total number was 1754.
(2) The total income for the year was Rs. 6,64,043
H
including the amount of Rs. 1,73,583 received by way of
donation. The income proper was 'thus Rs. 4,90,459.
A
B
c
D
F
G
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE v. WORKMEN (Mitter, !.)
209
(3) Some lancis of the institution were under its personal cultivation. The sale proceeds of the yield thereof
was Rs. 6,492. The rent fetched by the immovable property was Rs. 2,20,549. The milk yielded by the cows was
re~larly collected and sold, the sale proceeds for the year
bemg Rs. 4,30,034. A large number of workmen was
employed to attend to the cows and to feed them, to milk
the cows and to carry and sell the milk to the public.
(4)
The number of cows yielding milk at the end of
the year was 242. At that time there were 75 pregnant
cows.
There were 57 other cows, 101 grown-up calves
(female) and 91 other small calves (female) all described
as "reserved". In the opinion of the Tribunal all these
calves would in course of time grow into cows.
(5) The institution maintained some stud bulls. Besides there were bullocks which were used for piying the
carts or for cultivation of the lands of the institution.
( 6) There were 36 heads of cattle described as arrivals from Bombay. There were another 87 cows described
as "danger"; the rest of the cattle (cows and bullocks)
were 57 lame and blind, 177 weak, 51 infirm, quite infirm
80 and sick 108, the total of this category being 473; including the "danger" cows the total was 560. These animals
depended entirely on the charity of the institution.
The Tribunal found the activities of the institution in
connection with its movable property and collection and
sale of milk to be an industry while the. maintenance of
danger cows, blind, lame, infirm and sick, the dogs and
other animals did not constitute an industry.
As already noted, the application under Art. 227 by
the Panjrapole to the Bombay High Court was dismissed
summarily and therefore we do not have the benefit of a
judgment of the High Court. As the records stand we
must proceed on the facts found by the Tribunal and such
light as is thrown thereon by arguments of counsel.
Before looking into the relevant authorities on the
subject, we may ntite the points canvassed in support of
ot against the appeal · by learned counsel oh either side.
Referring to the trust deeds it was argtied on behalf of the
atJf'1!1litnt that the essential purpose of the institution was
210
[1972] l S.C.R
to keep and foster animals which were ei.ther rejected
A
by their owners as old and infirm or of no use to them as
"uckling calves, dry cows etc.
It is not necessary to take
into account the otl:er animab which \I ere maintained bv
the institution.
Leavine ocl of account the number o"r
dogs kept, th~ number (Jf 0111..:r animals wa, insignificant. B
It was argued that although th~ s~\k of milk produced a
fair amount of income. ccn;i!n portion cl" it was necessary
for the maintenance of the sick and infirm animals and the
:;ale of the balance of the 111il.~ ought to be rcgardecl as
incidental 10 the keeping of cm1s thl·own on the-hands of
the institution and ought not to lead to an inference that <
the institution was pur:;uing an industry. With regard to
the immovable properties, it was said that they had been
purchased out of surplus funds in the hands of the institution over 50 years back and on a conspectus of the actil'ities of the institution it should be held that it was merely
doing charity to animals and it was not producing food or n
giving service to humans to constitute its activity as an
industry within the meaning of s.2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act
Learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention
to
certain facts which according to him went to show
£
that so far as the activity of keeping cattle, specially cows
and she-buffaloes was concerned, there could be little
doubt that it was pursued as an industry.
He handed
over two charts containing analysis of the cattle population as culled from the documents placed before the
Tribunal by the institution itself.
The total strength of F
cattle in all the four branches of the institution in the year
1958 was 1674, 1598 in the year 1959, 1533 in the year 1960
and 1488 in 1961 and 1459 in 1962.
The sick, old and
infirm cattle for the year 1958 was 456 or roughly 25 per
cent of the total strength. Young animals numbered 243
and other cattle which were not at all sick was 975 in
G
number. The percentage of sick, old and infirm cattle in
the year 1959 was roughly 20~;,; in the year 1960 and 1961,
10 per cent and in the year 1962 15 ~{..
The rest of the
cattle according to counsel were neither old nor infirm but
were either producing milk or being put to use immediately
or capable of yielding milk or work in the future. Another
H
chart handed over by him went to show that the total value
of milk produced in the year 1958 was Rs. 1,53,849 and
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE v. WORKMEN (Mitter, J.)
211
leaving out of account of Rs. 3,995 being the value of milk
supplied to the sick cattle, the institution derived an income of Rs. 1,49,854/- from the sale of milk. The corresponding figures for 1959 were total sales Rs. 1,86,912,
value of milk consumed Rs. 17,447, income from milk,
Rs. 1,69,465.
The figures
for 1960 were Rs. 2,24,118,
. Rs. 11,0ll and Rs. 2,13,117 /-; those for 1961 were Rs.
2,31,931, Rs. 8,836 and Rs. 2,23,095/-. The figures for
the last year 1962 were Rs. 2,40,202, Rs. 10,159 and Rs.
2,30,043. Thus according to the above figures, the percentage of milk given to the animals out of the total production was 2 ·6 in 1958, 9 ·5 in 1959, 5 in 1960 and 4 in
the years 1961 and 1962. Learned counsel drew our attention to the figures of expenses of tending the sick and
infirm cattle either by employment of hospital workers or
medical expenses and compared the same with the total
expenses of the institution and the number of men employed. The value of medical relief to animals either by way
of salary to workers, dearness allowance paid to them,
medical expenses and feeding of milk to the animals for
the Bombay Panjrapole in the year 1961 was Rs. 11,762,
for Raita Rs. 5,551, for Chembur Rs. 5,028 and for Bhiwandi Rs. 28,805. The expenses of feeding and maintenance of sick animals for the said branches were Rs. 1,825,
13,596, 7,554 and 81,464. But it is pertinent to note
that medical expenses accounted for very small sums,
namely, Rs. 1,267 for Bombay,
Rs. 559 for
Raita,
Rs. 1,696 for Chembur and Rs. 552 for Bhiwandi. The figures
of medical expenses for the year 1962 were equally negligible. The number of people employed for giving medical
relief at the Bombay Panjrapole in the year 1961 was only
7, namely, a doctor, a dresser, 4 coolies and other workers
and a sundry worker. Their total salary came to Rs.
6,000 besides dearness allowance of Rs. 2,448. Similarly
at Raita there were a doctor, two coolies, two dressers and
sundry workers and expenditure \vas only Rs. 552 out of
the total expenditure on all these items Rs. 4,992.
It was argued on the basis of these figures that if the
object of the Panjrapole was only to maintain and treat
the old, diseased or infirm or rejected cattle on its hands
acquired from different sources, the number of men employed would be very small and the milk required for the
sick and infirm cattle could be had from only a few milch
212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] 1 S.C.R.
cows and she-buffaloes. It was urged that the fact that
A
a large number of milch cattle were to be found every year
among the cattle population yielding milk regularly of·
the value of over Rs. 2,00,000 for the last 3 or 4 years
went to show that the institution was pursuing an activity
more or less like that of a dairy farm. It was maintaining
8
a number of stud bulls and had actually purchased one,
the obvious object behind it being improving the cattle
wealth of the institution by the production of good and
healthy cattle, the females of which would come to yield
milk in future. It was said that the value of milk sold
could not be as high as disclosed by the figures unless the c
institution was getting a number of milch cattle every
year to replace those which were going dry for the time
being. This could only be possible if the institution was
in a position to keep up its number of milch cattle from the
young ones either given to the Panjrapole or those which
were bred at the Panjrapole. The only difference between
D
the Panjrapole and a well organised dairy farm was that
the Panjrapole was not buying milch cattle of good quality
nor destroying or getting rid of any which were found to
become useless. As the objects of the institution did not
permit it to get rid of any cattle it undoubtedly had to
maintain whatever cattle came to it but nevertheless the
E
activities displayed by the facts were enough to show that
it was being run on the lines of a business or an undertaking, though not of the normal type of a well organised
dairy business.
·
In our view the arguments of learned counsel for the
F
respondent have ~on~ide:able forc;e. The maii: heads of
the income of the mstitut10n were mcome from immovable
properties, donation from charitably disposed members
of the public and the sale of m.ilk. No doubt the immovable property had been acquired many years back from
the surplus funds in the bands of the trustees. These
G
were old houses and buildings but the Panjrapole was maintaining them in tenantable condition by incurring considerable. expenses every year over the repairs. The more
significant foe.tor wa.s the steadily growing income from
the sale of milk denved from milch cows and buffaloes,
the number of which though not steady was always consiH
derable. Regard must also be had to the written statement of the institution itself before the Tribunal showing
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE v. WORKMEN (Mitter, J.)
213
that the Managing Committee of the trustees had decided
some time back to upgrade the inf)rm cattle and rear them
into good animals so as to get good and pure milk for the
inmates of Panjrapole. In fact however the upgrading was.
to such an extent that the milk yielded always was far in
excess of the needs of the inmates of the Panjrapole. Although the sale proceeds of the milk was never utilised
nor was ever meant for the benefit or profits of the donors
or trustees, the very production of it in such large bulk
wholly unrelated to the needs of the sick cattle showed that
the institution was pursuing an activity with the central
idea of obtaining a steady income therefrom. In our
view, the facts justifiably lead to the conclusion that the
institution deliberately diversified its objects from only
tending to the sick, infirm or unwanted cattle by adopting the policy of keeping cattle not merely for their own
sake but for the sake of improving the cattle population
committed to its care with an eye to serve human beings
by making large quantities of good milk available to them
and thereby getting an income which would augment its
resources. It pursued its policy just as any dairy owner
would by having a few good quality bulls to impregnate
the cows· arid thereby ensuring a steady production of
milk and also improve the quality of the progeny.
We have then to consider whether on the above facts
an inference ought properly to be drawn that the activities
of the Panjrapole constituted an industry. It is not necessary to go through the plethora of cases decided by this
Court to find out whether the Tribunal had come to a proper conclusion. Although there is no decision of this
Court arising out of the affairs of a Panjrapole, there are
several dealing with the question as to whether hospitals
constituted industries. The contention of learned counsel
for the appellant was that the main and chief object of the
app(lllant institution being the keeping 11-nd fostering of
animals, incidental activities. ought to be disregarded and
the institution ought to be considered as a hospital. If the
activities relating to the production of milk could be said
to be incidental to the maintaining of sick, infirm and diseased or rejected cattle, the argumentwould, in our opinion,
rest on solid foundation.
~14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[I 972] I S.CR.
At the time when the application under Art. 227 of the .\
Constitu ion was presented before the Bombay High Court,
the decision of this Court in State of Bomhay v. ThP Hospital
1\fazdoor Sabha (1) held the field and it can be assumed
that it was on the strength of this decision that the Bombay
High Court did not feel called upon to examine the merits
ll
of the case by issuing a rule. In the Hospital Mazdoor
Sabha's case (supra) the dispute arose out of the re~rench
ment of respondents 2 and 3 before this Court who had
been engaged as ward servants in the J.J. Group of Hospitals, Bombay under State control and management without payment of compensation as required bys. 25-F(b) c
of the Industrial Disputes Act. The decision of this Court
shows that there was a group consisting of five hospitals
under the administrative control of the Surgeon General
of the appellant and its day to day affairs were conducted
and controlled by a Superintendent who was a full-time
employee of the appellant. The residential staff including
D
the Resident Medical Officers, Housemen, Nurses etc.
were all full-time employees of the appellant and their
salaries were drawn on the establishment pay bills of the
appellant and paid entirely by the appellant. According
to this Court :
~
"This group serves as a clinical training ground
for stud!!nts of the .Grant Medical College which is
a Government Medical College run and managed by
the appellant for imparting knowledge of medical
sciences leading to the Degrees of Bachelor of
Medicine and Bachelor of SurgetY of the Bombay
University as well as various Post-Graduate qualifications of the said University and the College
of Physicians and Surgeons, Bombay; the group is
thus run and managed by the appellant to provide
medical relief and to promote the health of the
people of Bombay."
On the question as to whether the activities of this group
of hospitals would be covered by the definition of 'industry' in s.2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court
observed (see at p. 878) :
"In considering the question as to whether the
group of Hospitals run by the appellant undoubtedly
(I) [1960) 2 S.C.R. 866.
E
F
G
H
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE v. WORKMEN (Mitter, J.)
21 !;
for the purpose of giving medical relief to the citizens
and for helping to impart medical education are an
undertaking or not, it would be pertinent to enquire
whether the activity of a like nature would be an
undertaking if it is carried on by a private citizen
or a group of private citizens. There is no doubt
that if a hospital is run by private citizens for profit
it would be an undertaking very much like the trade
or business in their conventional sense ..... Thus the
character of the activity involved in running a hospital brings the institution of the hospital within
s.2(j). Does it make any difference that the hospital is run by the Government in the interpretation
of the word "undertaking" in s.2(j)? In our opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative. It is the character of the activity which decides
the question as to whether the activity in question
attracts the provision of s.2(j); who conducts the
activity and whether it is conducted for profit or
not do not make a material difference."
As to the attributes which made the activity an undertaking it was stated (see at p. 879) :
"It js difficult to state these possible attributes
definitely or exhaustively; as a working principle
it may be stated that an activity systematically or
habitually undertaken for the production or distribution of goods or for the rendering of material
services to the community at large or a part of such
community with the help of employees is an undertaking. Such an activity generally involves the
co-operation of the employer and the employees;
and its object is the satisfaction of material human
needs. It must be organised or arranged in a manner in which ·trade or business is generally organised or arranged. It must not be casual or must
it be for oneself nor for pleasure. Thus the manner
. in which the activity in question is organised or
arranged, the condition of the co-operation between the employer and the employee necessary
for its success and its object to render material service to the community can be regarded as some
of the features which are distinctive of activities
15---Ml ~45 Sur. Cl/71
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l972) 1 >CR
to which s.2(j) applies. Judged by this test, ther.:
would be no difficulty in holding that the State
is carrying on an undertaking when it runs the
group of Hospitals in question."
A
B
The recent decision of this Court in Safdar Jung Hos111tal, New Dellzi v. K. S. Sethi and Management of M/s
T.B. Hospital, New Delhi v. The Workmen (1) is a pointer
in the contrary direction. There was also another appea.1
relating to the Kurji Holy Family Hospital. The Court
proceeded to consider the general proposition whether a
hospital could be considered to fall within the concept c
of industry in the Industrial Disputes Act and whether
all hospitals of whatever description could be covered by
the concept or only some hospitafa under special cc1ndi-
'tions.
According to this Court in Safdar Jung •Hospital .:~i~c
D
(see p.1412 paragraph 13) :
'" ... an industry is to be found when the employers are carrying on any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers.
If
they are not, there is no industry as such."
·
The Court referred to the decision of this Court in G vmkhana Club Union v. Management (') and the conclu.iion
1 herein that :
"Primarily, therefore, industrial disputes occur
when the operation undertaken rests upon co -
·operation between employers and employees with a
view to production and distribution of material
goods, in other words, wealth, but they may arise
.also in cases where the co-operation is to reduce
material services. The normal cases are those
.in which the production or distribution is of mate-·
rial goods or wealth and they will fall withii1 th.:
expressions, trade, business. or manufacture."
'With regard to trade and business it was said :
"Business too is a word of wide import. In one
sense it includes all occupations and professiom.
But in the collocation of the terms and their dcfi-
. 11 A.J.R. 1'!70 S.C. 1407,
IC) [1968] l S.C.R. 74" .
F
G
H
c
D
E
.f'
H
ll<niBAY PANJRAPOLE \'.WORKMEN (Miller, J.)
217
nitions these terms have a definite economic conlent of a particular type and all the authorities
of this Court have been uniformly accepted as
·excluding professions and are only concerned with
the production, distribution and consumption of
wealth and the production and availability of
material services."
With regard to the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha cast: (1) it
was remarked (see p. 1414) :
"The case proceeds on the assumption th.it
there need not be an economic activity since t:mployment of capital and profit motive were considered unessential. lt is an erroneous assumption
that an economic activity must be related to capital
and profit-making alone. An economic activity
can exist without the presence of both. Having
rejected the true test applied in other cases before,
the test applied was 'can such activity be carried on
private individuals or group of individuals?' Holding that a ho~pital could be rlm as a business proposition and for profit, it was held that a hospital run
by Government without profit must bear the same
character. With respect, we do not consider this
to be the right test. This test was employed to
·distinguish between the administrative functions
of Government and local authorities and their functions analogous to business but it cannot be uox:d.
in this context. When it was emphasised in the
same case that the activity must be analogous to
business aild trade and that it must be productive
of goods or their distribution or for producing
material services to the community at large or a
part of it, there was no room for the other proposition that privately run hospitals may in certain
circumstances be regarded as industries."
This Court held that the Hospital Ma=door Sablw ..:asc(1)
··took an extreme view of the matter which was not.justified". With regard to the activities of the individual
hospitals it was said the Safdar Jung hospital had not
embarked on an economic activity which could b..: said
ro be anologous to trade or business. There \\as no
(I) [1960] 2 S.C.R. S66.
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[I972J 1 S.C.R.
evidenceTthat it was more than a place where persons
A
could get treated. This was a part of the functions of
Government and the hospital was run as a Department
of Government and could not therefore be said to be an
industry. Again, with regard to Tuberculosis hospital
it was found not to be an independent institution but a
8
part of the Tuberculosis Association of India. The hospital was wholly charitable and was a research institute.
The dominant purpose of the hospital was research and
training, but as research and training could not be given
without beds in a hospital, the hospital was run. According to this Court, treatment is thus a part of research and c
training. Jn these circumstances the Tuberculosis hospital
could not be described as an industry. With regard to
the Kurji Holy Family Hospital again it was found to be
entirely charitable. It carried on the work of training,
research and treatment; its income was mostly from donations and distribution of surp!us as profit is prohibited.
D
It could not therefore be an industry as laid down in the
Act.
Reference may also be made to the case of Lalit Hari
Ayurvedic Cotlege Pharmacy v. Its Workers' Union (1).
In this the appellate Tribunal found that the pharmacy
E
run by the appellant sold medicines in the market and
realised about Rs. one lakh per annum whereas in the
hospital run by it about 30% of the medicines manufactured by it were consumed and about 70% were sold in
the market. This judgment was delivered on the same
date by the same Bench which decided the Hospital MazF
door Sabha case (supra). On the facts found this Court
held that there could be no doubt "that the activity of the
appellant in running the pharmacy and the hospital was
an undertaking under s.2(j) and was an industry".
The only case of Panjrapole which appears to have
G
come before the High Courts was that of the Madras
Panjrapole v. J,abour Court (2) which was the subject-matter
of an industrial dispute referred to in the year 1958 by the
Stat·e Government for adjudication by the Labour Court,
Madras. This was decided after the Hospital Mazdoor
Sabha case. The facts referred to by the High Court
H
wen: that the 11adras Panjrapole was a charitable society
(l) A.l.R. 1960) S.C. !261.
(2) [1960] 2 L.L.J. 686.
A
B
c
D
'\
E
F
G
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE v. WORKMEN (Mitter, J.)
219
registered under the Societies Registration Act occupying
an area of about Ac. 12-00 of land within the city of
Madras on which the munificence of several donors had
enabled the construction of shelters for animals as well
as sanctuary for birds. The objects of the society, as
stated in the memorandum of association, 'are protection,
care and treatment of old, infirm and injured cows, calves,
bullocks etc. and affording freedom to such animals from
being slaughtered unnecessarily and to guarantee old-age
relief to the old, infirm and unserviceable animals till they
die of natural causes. To achieve these objects, the means
envisaged to be adopted were :
(a) maintenance of shelter-house for aged and
unserviceable animals,
(b) the feeding and treatment of all animals entrusted to the care of the society either by the
owners anxious to pension their old animals or
rescued by philanthropic persons from the
hands of butchers and the protection of animals remanded by magistrates;
( c) the breeding of bulls under ideal and sanitary
conditions;
(d) the maintenance of a dairy farm with special
attention being paid to proper feeding, accommodation and water supply, the proceeds of
which will go to the benefit of the other animals
of the Panjrapole; and
(e) the bringing up of the calves of the young cows
under healthy conditions.
The Court observed (see p. 689):
"It is a matter of common knowledge that a
number of dry cows in the City of Madras are sold
away to butchers by the poor milkmen who could not
support them. Butchers themselves offer tempting
prices for such cows, a temptation which the poverty
of the milkmen could not but lead him to succumb.
Dry cows were admitted into the Panjrapole to
prevent them from going into the slaughter-house.
Maintenance of the dry cows called for stud bulls.
Stud bulls were presented to the society by the
Government. In the course of time, the dry cows
brought forth their progeny alld began to yield milk.
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] I S.C.R
The Panjrapole was, therefore, in a position to sell
milk yielded by the cows which were received by it
with a view to protect them from the slaughter-house
... details of the sale amounts in respect of the milk
produced . . . shows that the institution had been
receiving substantial sums every year by sale of milk:·
So for as the activities of the Madras Panjrapole and
Bomaby Panjrapole are concerned they are practically
identical except that in the present case the maintenance
of a dairy farm is not explicitly referred to anywhere but
the facts as culled from the evidence makes the same only
too obvious. There was however a certain difference
c:,
in the case of the Madras Panjrapole inasmuch as the
Madras High Court found that (see p. 691) :
"During certain years, it even went a step further.
The Panjrapolc purchased cows, maintained a dairy
farm and supplemented their own production of
milk with outside milk and sold them. These activities would certainly partake the character of a business, though the profit of such business might have
gone to the humanitarian activities undertaken by
the society.