Case: Agrl.Produce Mkt.Committee Vs. Ashok Harikuni &amp; Anr Etc

such trading. This is similar, in a nature and form to what is being done now under the State Act through statutory functionaries. Thus none of these functions could be construed to be sovereign in nature or inalienable in character. 27. It is true various functionaries under this Act are creature of statute. But creation as such, by itself, cannot confer on it the status of performing inalienable functions of the State. The main controlling functions and power is conferred on the market committee whose constitution itself reveals, except one or two rest are all are elected members representing some on other class from the public. In fact, all governmental functions cannot be construed either primary or inalienable sovereign function. Hence even if some of the functionaries under the State Act could be said to be performing sovereign functions of the State Government that by itself would not make the dominant objects to be sovereign in nature or take the aforesaid Act out of the purview of the Central Act. 28. Thus merely an enterprise being statutory corporation, creature under a statute, would not take it outside the ambit of "industry" as defined under the Central Act. We do not find the present case falling under any exception laid down in the Bangalore Sewerage Board case (supra). The mere fact that some employees of the appellant are government servants would make no difference as the true test to find - has to be gathered from the dominant object for which functionaries are working. It cannot be doubted that the appellant is an undertaking performing its duties in a systematic and organised manner, regulating the marketing and trading of agricultural produce, rendering services to the community. In the present case, as we have recorded earlier, we are concerned only with those employees who are not government servants. Testing the dominant object as laid down in Bangalore Sewerage Board case (supra), we reach to inescapable conclusion that none of the activities of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee could be construed to be sovereign in nature. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that this corporation falls within the definition of "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Central Act.29. Section 2(a) of the Central Act defines `Appropriate Government in relation to any industrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of Central Government, or railway company etc. and refers to large number of corporations and corporate bodies which falls in the category of "industry". This indicates even Legislatures intends a very large arms of "industry", to include large number of enterprises to be industry to confer benefit to the employees working under it. In fact, several corporations conferred with statutory powers also curtails individual rights like, through levy of demurrages, detention charges in the warehousing corporation under the Warehouse Corporation Act; Regulation of entry into airport, ATC, levy and regulation of taxes and fees by the international airport authority. Assessment and levy of damages as well as penalties by authorities under the Employees State Insurance Act and Employees Provident Fund Act. Though each of the aforesaid corporations and statutory bodies are "industry". So one of the feeble submissions that curtailment of right of an individual could only be by the exercise of sovereign power has also no merit. 30. From the aforesaid catena of authorities, inalienability is one of the basic character of sovereignty. The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution with reference to "sovereignty" attempts to define sovereignty. It records : "Within the American regime the ultimate power and authority to alter or abolish the constitutions of government of State and Union resides only and inalienably with the people. If it be necessary or useful to use the term "sovereignty" in the sense of ultimate political power, then there is no sovereign in America but the people. Dennis J. Mahoney" Ã¯7Â?3 Å 31. Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Volume 39-A with reference to "sovereign power" records : "The "sovereign powers" of a Government include all the powers necessary to accomplish its legitimate ends and purposes. Such powers must exist in all practical governments. They are the incidents of sovereignty, of which a State cannot devest itself. Boggs v. Meree Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279, 309............In all governments of constitutional limitations "sovereign power" manifests itself in but three ways. By exercising the right of taxation; by the right of eminent domain; and through its police power. United States v. Douglas-Willan Sartoris Co., 22 p. 92, 96, 3 Wyo. 287." 32. So, sovereign function in the new sense may have very wide ramification but essentially sovereign functions are primary inalienable functions which only State could exercise. Thus, various functions of the State, may be ramifications of `sovereignty but they all cannot be construed as primary inalienable functions. Broadly it is taxation, eminent domain and police power which covers its field. It may cover its legislative functions, administration of law, eminent domain, maintenance of law and order, internal and external security, grant of pardon. So, the dichotomy between sovereign and non-sovereign function could be found by finding which of the functions of the State could be undertaken by any private person or body. The one which could be undertaken cannot be sovereign function. In a given case even in subject on which the State has the monopoly may also be non-sovereign in nature. Mere dealing in subject of monopoly of the State would not make any such enterprise sovereign in nature. Absence of profit making or mere quid pro would also make such enterprise to be outside the ambit of "industry" as also in State of Bombay and others case (supra).33. The last submission for the appellant is with reference to sub-section (3) of Section 59 of the said Act. The submission is, this excludes the application of the Central Act to the employees under the State Act. The reliance is placed on the following opening words of this sub-section (3) namely : "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

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

Explanation:
0[ds]21. In other words, it all depends on the nature of power and the manner of its exercise. What is approved to be "Sovereign" is defence of the country, raising armed forces, making peace or war, foreign affairs, power to acquire and retain territory. These are not amenable to the jurisdiction of ordinary civil Courts. The other functions of the State including welfare activity of State could not be construed as "sovereign" exercise of power. Hence, every governmental function need not be "sovereign". State activities are multifarious. From the primal sovereign power, which exclusively inalienably could be exercised by the Sovereign alone, which is not subject to challenge in any civil Court to all the welfare activities, which would be undertaken by any private person. So merely one is employee of statutory bodies would not take it outside the Central Act. If that be then Section 2(a) of the Central Act read with Schedule I gives large number of statutory bodies should have been excluded, which is not. Even if a statute confers on any statutory body, any function which would be construed to be "sovereign" in nature would not mean every other functions under the same statute to be also sovereign. The Court should examine the statute to severe (sever ?) one from the other by comprehensively examining various provisions of that statute. In interpreting any statute to find it is "industry" or not we have to find its pith and substance. The Central Act is enacted to maintain harmony between employer and employee which brings peace and amity in its functioning. This peace and amity should be the objective in the functioning of all enterprises. This is to the benefit of both, employer and employee. Misuse of rights and obligations by either or stretching it beyond permissible limits have to be dealt with within the framework of the law but endeavour should not be in all circumstances to exclude any enterprise from its ambit. That is why Courts have been defining "industry" in the widest permissible limits and "sovereign" functioning within its limited orbit.Thus merely an enterprise being statutory corporation, creature under a statute, would not take it outside the ambit of "industry" as defined under the Central Act. We do not find the present case falling under any exception laid down in the Bangalore Sewerage Board case (supra). The mere fact that some employees of the appellant are government servants would make no difference as the true test to find - has to be gathered from the dominant object for which functionaries are working. It cannot be doubted that the appellant is an undertaking performing its duties in a systematic and organised manner, regulating the marketing and trading of agricultural produce, rendering services to the community. In the present case, as we have recorded earlier, we are concerned only with those employees who are not government servants. Testing the dominant object as laid down in Bangalore Sewerage Board case (supra), we reach to inescapable conclusion that none of the activities of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee could be construed to be sovereign in nature. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that this corporation falls within the definition of "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Central Act.29. Section 2(a) of the Central Act defines `Appropriate Government in relation to any industrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of Central Government, or railway company etc. and refers to large number of corporations and corporate bodies which falls in the category of "industry". This indicates even Legislatures intends a very large arms of "industry", to include large number of enterprises to be industry to confer benefit to the employees working under it. In fact, several corporations conferred with statutory powers also curtails individual rights like, through levy of demurrages, detention charges in the warehousing corporation under the Warehouse Corporation Act; Regulation of entry into airport, ATC, levy and regulation of taxes and fees by the international airport authority. Assessment and levy of damages as well as penalties by authorities under the Employees State Insurance Act and Employees Provident Fund Act. Though each of the aforesaid corporations and statutory bodies are "industry". So one of the feeble submissions that curtailment of right of an individual could only be by the exercise of sovereign power has also no merit.So, sovereign function in the new sense may have very wide ramification but essentially sovereign functions are primary inalienable functions which only State could exercise. Thus, various functions of the State, may be ramifications of `sovereignty but they all cannot be construed as primary inalienable functions. Broadly it is taxation, eminent domain and police power which covers its field. It may cover its legislative functions, administration of law, eminent domain, maintenance of law and order, internal and external security, grant of pardon. So, the dichotomy between sovereign andfunction could be found by finding which of the functions of the State could be undertaken by any private person or body. The one which could be undertaken cannot be sovereign function. In a given case even in subject on which the State has the monopoly may also bein nature. Mere dealing in subject of monopoly of the State would not make any such enterprise sovereign in nature. Absence of profit making or mere quid pro would also make such enterprise to be outside the ambit of "industry" as also in State of Bombay and others case (supra).33. The last submission for the appellant is with reference to(3) of Section 59 of the said Act. The submission is, this excludes the application of the Central Act to the employees under the State Act.In view of the aforesaid settled legal principle the width of "industry" being of widest amplitude and testing it in the present case, in view of the preamble, Objects and Reasons and the scheme of the Act, theobject clearly being regulation and control of trading of agricultural produce, thusincluding its functionaries cannot be said to be performing functions which are sovereign in character. Most of its functions could be undertaken even by private persons. Thus the appellant would fall within the definition of "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Central Act. In view of this, we uphold that respondent employees are `workman under the Central Act as held by the Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court. The Labour Court has dealt with each individual case and came to the conclusion in favour ofwhich has also been confirmed by learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court, which does not call for any interference