Case: Bombay Panjrapole, Bhuleshwar Vs. The Workmen And Another

22. The net result of the above scents to be, that although the Bench was inclined to hold that the Madras Panjrapole at its inception was not an industry the complexion of its activities might have been altered by later developments so as to render the institution as then organised an industry within the meaning of the Act. Further according to the Bench individual units of the organisation (like the district dairy farm) might constitute an industry though the society itself may not be one. 23. The matter came up again before the Madras High Court (see 1967-2 Lab. L. J. 399 = 1968 Lab IC 65 (Mad) ). The Tribunal held in favour of the workman and the learned Judge dismissed the application for the issue of a writ by the Panjrapole. The learned Judge referred to the reports of the institution in several years past from 1937 to 1957. He found that the object of the society had been amended in 1937 to enable it to receive young cows and charge fees from the owners. The idea of starting a dairy farm was for supporting the infirm cows, bullocks and horses and in pursuance of that idea stud bulls were acquired for improving the cattle breeding. The income from the sale of milk rose phenomenally reaching the figure of Rs. 60,000 in the year 1957. The learned Judge found himself unable to hold that maintaining cows and stud bulls and selling milk were only subsidiary in nature to the humane activity of the society, namely, to provide shelter for the decrepit and useless and infirm animals. The learned Judge held that "if the Madras Pinjrapole had confined itself to the objectives at its inception namely, to give protection to the old, infirm and decrepit animals, it could well be contended that it was only for the purpose of satisfying purely spiritual needs, as it is common knowledge that Hindus consider cow protection as one of their religious duties.... If the Madras Ponjrapole had not extended its activities, following the authorities cited above, I would have had no hesitation in holding that it is not an industry.... A reading of the annual reports show that a large number of high milk yielding cows and buffaloes were purchased by the society and due to the successful working of the dairy farm the Pinjrapole was able to supply milk to various institutions...The reports show that considerable profits were made by the Pinjrapole, the sale of milk fetching a sum of Rs. 60,000 in the year 1957." In the result the petition was dismissed and the labour court was directed to determine the other issues. 24. We have referred at some length to the Madras Panjrapole case to show the analogy of the activities of the Madras Panjrapole to the Bombay Panjrapole.Save for the fact that the Madras Panjrapole definitely and expressly changed its objective by starting a dairy farm and purchasing milch cows and stud bulls there is very little difference between the facts of the case before us from that in the Madras Panjrapole case. In the present case only one stud bull there is purchased but the activities pursued by the Bombay Panjrapole make it clear that they were pursuing the same kind of activity, namely, that of using stud bulls for the purpose of breeding healthy cattle including cows so as to be able to make a very sizable income from the sale of milk. For the last few years from 1958 to 1962 the number of milch cows was always considerable which could only be accounted for by the fact that from time to time the place of cows which had become dry was being taken up by cows fecundated by the bulls maintained for the purpose of keeping up a steady supply of milk. We have already referred to the fact that the value of milk supplied to the sick and infirm cattle was infinitesimal compared to that sold in the market. The expenses incurred in connection with the treatment of sick and infirm animals were also negligible compared to the total expenses of the institution. The number of men employed for such treatment was very small at all times. The mere fact therefore that the Panjrapole never purchased milch cow and never purchased stud bulls except once makes no difference to the question as to whether their activity of maintaining cows and bulls could only be considered as an investment. It was certainly carried on as a business although it was not pursued in the same way as astute businessmen only out to make profit would, namely, get rid of the animals which were no longer fit for any use. The value of the milk supplied for the last 3 or 4 years was well in excess of Rupees 2 lakhs per annum and this could only be possible if the cows and buffaloes had been kept and maintained not merely to keep them alive but with the idea of getting as much production out of them as possible. 25. In this view of the matter, it is hardly necessary to consider the other cases which were cited at the Bar, namely, Gymkhana Club Union case, AIR 1968 SC 554 (supra), Cricket Club v. Labour Union, (1969) 1 SCR 600 = (AIR 1969 SC 276 ) and Harinagar Cane Farm v. State of Bihar, (1964) 2 SCR 458 = (AIR 1964 SC 903 ). It was remarked in the Gymkhana Club case that the activity of the club is conducted with the aid of employees who follow callings or avocations and that the activities of the club was not a calling or business of its members of Managing Committee and there was no undertaking analogous to trade or business. In the Cricket Clubs case, (supra) the Court examined the different activities of the club and came to the conclusion that they did not lead to the inference that the club was carrying on an industry.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]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 and thereby ensuring a steady production of milk and also improve the quality of the progeny24. We have referred at some length to the Madras Panjrapole case to show the analogy of the activities of the Madras Panjrapole to the Bombay Panjrapole.Save for the fact that the Madras Panjrapole definitely and expressly changed its objective by starting a dairy farm and purchasing milch cows and stud bulls there is very little difference between the facts of the case before us from that in the Madras Panjrapole case. In the present case only one stud bull there is purchased but the activities pursued by the Bombay Panjrapole make it clear that they were pursuing the same kind of activity, namely, that of using stud bulls for the purpose of breeding healthy cattle including cows so as to be able to make a very sizable income from the sale of milk. For the last few years from 1958 to 1962 the number of milch cows was always considerable which could only be accounted for by the fact that from time to time the place of cows which had become dry was being taken up by cows fecundated by the bulls maintained for the purpose of keeping up a steady supply of milk. We have already referred to the fact that the value of milk supplied to the sick and infirm cattle was infinitesimal compared to that sold in the market. The expenses incurred in connection with the treatment of sick and infirm animals were also negligible compared to the total expenses of the institution. The number of men employed for such treatment was very small at all times. The mere fact therefore that the Panjrapole never purchased milch cow and never purchased stud bulls except once makes no difference to the question as to whether their activity of maintaining cows and bulls could only be considered as an investment. It was certainly carried on as a business although it was not pursued in the same way as astute businessmen only out to make profit would, namely, get rid of the animals which were no longer fit for any use. The value of the milk supplied for the last 3 or 4 years was well in excess of Rupees 2 lakhs per annum and this could only be possible if the cows and buffaloes had been kept and maintained not merely to keep them alive but with the idea of getting as much production out of them as possibleIt 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 dealings with the question as to whether hospitals constituted industriesIf 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 argument would, in our opinion, rest on solid foundationSo far as the activities of the Madras Panjrapole and Bombay 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 make the same only too obvious. There was however a certain difference in the case of the Madras Panjrapole inasmuch as the Madras High Court22. The net result of the above scents to be, that although the Bench was inclined to hold that the Madras Panjrapole at its inception was not an industry the complexion of its activities might have been altered by later developments so as to render the institution as then organised an industry within the meaning of the Act. Further according to the Bench individual units of the organisation (like the district dairy farm) might constitute an industry though the society itself may not be one23. The matter came up again before the Madras High Court (see2 Lab. L. J. 399 = 1968 Lab IC 65 (Mad) ). The Tribunal held in favour of the workman and the learned Judge dismissed the application for the issue of a writ by the Panjrapole. The learned Judge referred to the reports of the institution in several years past from 1937 to 1957. He found that the object of the society had been amended in 1937 to enable it to receive young cows and charge fees from the owners. The idea of starting a dairy farm was for supporting the infirm cows, bullocks and horses and in pursuance of that idea stud bulls were acquired for improving the cattle breeding. The income from the sale of milk rose phenomenally reaching the figure of Rs. 60,000 in the year 1957. The learned Judge found himself unable to hold that maintaining cows and stud bulls and selling milk were only subsidiary in nature to the humane activity of the society, namely, to provide shelter for the decrepit and useless and infirm animals. The learned Judge held that "if the Madras Pinjrapole had confined itself to the objectives at its inception namely, to give protection to the old, infirm and decrepit animals, it could well be contended that it was only for the purpose of satisfying purely spiritual needs, as it is common knowledge that Hindus consider cow protection as one of their religious duties.... If the Madras Ponjrapole had not extended its activities, following the authorities cited above, I would have had no hesitation in holding that it is not an industry.... A reading of the annual reports show that a large number of high milk yielding cows and buffaloes were purchased by the society and due to the successful working of the dairy farm the Pinjrapole was able to supply milk to various institutions...The reports show that considerable profits were made by the Pinjrapole, the sale of milk fetching a sum of Rs. 60,000 in the year 1957." In the result the petition was dismissed and the labour court was directed to determine the other issues24. We have referred at some length to the Madras Panjrapole case to show the analogy of the activities of the Madras Panjrapole to the Bombay Panjrapole.Save for the fact that the Madras Panjrapole definitely and expressly changed its objective by starting a dairy farm and purchasing milch cows and stud bulls there is very little difference between the facts of the case before us from that in the Madras Panjrapole case. In the present case only one stud bull there is purchased but the activities pursued by the Bombay Panjrapole make it clear that they were pursuing the same kind of activity, namely, that of using stud bulls for the purpose of breeding healthy cattle including cows so as to be able to make a very sizable income from the sale of milk. For the last few years from 1958 to 1962 the number of milch cows was always considerable which could only be accounted for by the fact that from time to time the place of cows which had become dry was being taken up by cows fecundated by the bulls maintained for the purpose of keeping up a steady supply of milk. We have already referred to the fact that the value of milk supplied to the sick and infirm cattle was infinitesimal compared to that sold in the market. The expenses incurred in connection with the treatment of sick and infirm animals were also negligible compared to the total expenses of the institution. The number of men employed for such treatment was very small at all times. The mere fact therefore that the Panjrapole never purchased milch cow and never purchased stud bulls except once makes no difference to the question as to whether their activity of maintaining cows and bulls could only be considered as an investment. It was certainly carried on as a business although it was not pursued in the same way as astute businessmen only out to make profit would, namely, get rid of the animals which were no longer fit for any use. The value of the milk supplied for the last 3 or 4 years was well in excess of Rupees 2 lakhs per annum and this could only be possible if the cows and buffaloes had been kept and maintained not merely to keep them alive but with the idea of getting as much production out of them as