Case: Harinagar Cane Farm &amp; Another Vs. State of Bihar &amp; Others

competence of Mr. Sinha to appear for it, the appellant Motipur Zamindari Co., Ltd., stated before the Tribunal that the Sugar Mills Association of which Mr. Sinha happens to be an office bearer is connected with the industry in which the Zamindari Co., is engaged, and so. Mr. Sinha had a right to represent the management of the appellant in the proceedings before the Tribunal. In other words, it is significant that the appellant expressly admitted that it was a part of the industry, the Association of which had employed Mr. Sinha as its office bearer. Apart from this aspect, however, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the agricultural operations carried on by the two respective appellants are an industry under S. 2(j).10. Before we part with these appeals, we may refer to four decisions of this Court where this question has been considered. In D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee, 1953 SCR 302 at p. 307: (AIR 1953 SC 58 at p. 60) this Court had occasion to examine the full significance and import of the words industry and industrial dispute as defined by S. 2(j) and (k) of the Act. It has been urged by the respondents that this decision supports their argument that S. 2(j) includes all agriculture and agricultural operations, and in support of this proposition, they have invited our attention to the statement in the judgment delivered by Chandrasekhara Aiyar J., where it is observed that the concept of industry in the ordinary non-technical sense applies even to agriculture horticulture, pisciculture and so on and so forth. We are not impressed by this argument. The context in which this sentence occurs shown that the Court was there dealing with the ordinary non-technical sense according to what is understood by the man in the street as the denotation of the word industry or business, and so, the observations made in that connection cannot be taken to amount to the broad and unqualified proposition that agriculture of all kinds is included in S. 2(j).The decision in that case was that disputes that might arise between municipalities and their employees in branches of work that can be said to be analogous to the carrying on of a trade or business, fall under S. 2(k) of the Act. It is in the light of this decision that the observations on which the respondents rely must be read.11. In the State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (1960) 2 SCR 866 at p. 880: AIR 1960 SC 610 at p. 616) this Court has had occasion to examine elaborately the implications of the concept of industry as defined by S. 2(j). But it may be point out that one of the considerations which weighed with this Court in dealing with the dispute raised by the appellant in that case was that in the First Schedule to the Act which enumerates industries which may be declared as public utility service under S. 2(a) (vi), three entries had been added by Act 36 of 1956. One of these was services in hospitals and dispensaries, and so, it was clear that after the addition of the relevant entry in the First Schedule it would not have been open to anybody to suggest that service in hospital does not fall under S. 2(j).12. In The Ahmedabad Textile Industrys Research Association v. The State of Bombay, (1961) 2 SCR 480 : (AIR 1961 SC 484 ) this Court held that the activities of the Research Association amounted to an industry, because the manner in which the Association had been organised showed that the undertaking as a whole was in the nature of business and trade organised with the object of discovering ways and means by which member-mills may obtain larger profits in connection with their industries. In other words, though the work was one of research and in that sense of an intellectual type, it had been so organised as to form part of or a department of the textile industry itself. That is why it was held that the appellant in that case was an employer and his activity was an industrial activity within the meaning of S. 2(j).13. On the other hand, the decision in the case of National Union of Commercial Employees v. M. R. Mehar, Industrial Tribunal, Bombay (1962) 2 SCA 587 : (AIR 1962 SC 1080 ) was cited where this Court was called upon to consider whether the office of a solicitors firm was an employer and the work carried on in his office an industry under S. 2(j) : it was held that though the work of a solicitor is, in a loose sense, business, it could not be treated as an industry under S. 2(j) because the essential attribute of an industrial dispute was lacking in such a case; the essential basis of an industrial dispute, it was observed is that it is a dispute arising between capital and labour in enterprises where capital and labour combine to produce commodities or to render service and that could hardly be predicated about liberal profession like that of a Solicitor. A person following a liberal profession cannot be said to carry on his profession in any rational sense with the active co-operation of his employees, because it is well known that the man capital which a person following a liberal profession contributes is his special or peculiar intellectual and educational equipment. It is on these grounds that the Act was held to be inapplicable to a solicitors firm. We have referred to these decisions only to emphasise the point that this Court has consistently refrained from laying down unduly broad or categorical propositions in dealing with the somewhat difficult disputes which the definition contained in Section 2(j) raises before industrial adjudication. In the present case the dispute raised lies within a narrow compass and it is on that narrow basis that we have decided it.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]In D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee, 1953 SCR 302     at p. 307: (AIR 1953 SC 58   at p. 60) this Court had occasion to examine the full significance and import of the words industry and industrial dispute as defined by S. 2(j) and (k) of the Act. It has been urged by the respondents that this decision supports their argument that S. 2(j) includes all agriculture and agricultural operations, and in support of this proposition, they have invited our attention to the statement in the judgment delivered by Chandrasekhara Aiyar J., where it is observed that the concept of industry in the ordinary non-technical sense applies even to agriculture horticulture, pisciculture and so on and so forth. We are not impressed by this argument. The context in which this sentence occurs shown that the Court was there dealing with the ordinary non-technical sense according to what is understood by the man in the street as the denotation of the word industry or business, and so, the observations made in that connection cannot be taken to amount to the broad and unqualified proposition that agriculture of all kinds is included in S. 2(j).The decision in that case was that disputes that might arise between municipalities and their employees in branches of work that can be said to be analogous to the carrying on of a trade or business, fall under S. 2(k) of the Act. It is in the light of this decision that the observations on which the respondents rely must be read.11. In the State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (1960) 2 SCR 866     at p. 880: AIR 1960 SC 610   at p. 616) this Court has had occasion to examine elaborately the implications of the concept of industry as defined by S. 2(j). But it may be point out that one of the considerations which weighed with this Court in dealing with the dispute raised by the appellant in that case was that in the First Schedule to the Act which enumerates industries which may be declared as public utility service under S. 2(a) (vi), three entries had been added by Act 36 of 1956. One of these was services in hospitals and dispensaries, and so, it was clear that after the addition of the relevant entry in the First Schedule it would not have been open to anybody to suggest that service in hospital does not fall under S. 2(j).12. In The Ahmedabad Textile Industrys Research Association v. The State of Bombay, (1961) 2 SCR 480   : (AIR 1961 SC 484  ) this Court held that the activities of the Research Association amounted to an industry, because the manner in which the Association had been organised showed that the undertaking as a whole was in the nature of business and trade organised with the object of discovering ways and means by which member-mills may obtain larger profits in connection with their industries. In other words, though the work was one of research and in that sense of an intellectual type, it had been so organised as to form part of or a department of the textile industry itself. That is why it was held that the appellant in that case was an employer and his activity was an industrial activity within the meaning of S. 2(j).13. On the other hand, the decision in the case of National Union of Commercial Employees v. M. R. Mehar, Industrial Tribunal, Bombay (1962) 2 SCA 587 : (AIR 1962 SC 1080  ) was cited where this Court was called upon to consider whether the office of a solicitors firm was an employer and the work carried on in his office an industry under S. 2(j) : it was held that though the work of a solicitor is, in a loose sense, business, it could not be treated as an industry under S. 2(j) because the essential attribute of an industrial dispute was lacking in such a case; the essential basis of an industrial dispute, it was observed is that it is a dispute arising between capital and labour in enterprises where capital and labour combine to produce commodities or to render service and that could hardly be predicated about liberal profession like that of a Solicitor. A person following a liberal profession cannot be said to carry on his profession in any rational sense with the active co-operation of his employees, because it is well known that the man capital which a person following a liberal profession contributes is his special or peculiar intellectual and educational equipment. It is on these grounds that the Act was held to be inapplicable to a solicitors firm. We have referred to these decisions only to emphasise the point that this Court has consistently refrained from laying down unduly broad or categorical propositions in dealing with the somewhat difficult disputes which the definition contained in Section 2(j) raises before industrial adjudication. In the present case the dispute raised lies within a narrow compass and it is on that narrow basis that we have decided it.