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

2. The 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 Parsee 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 Hindu, Parsees and Mahajuns had resolved to start a Panjrapole with suitable buildings by raising subscription and also by promising to pay certain fees on stated mercantile commodities to the Panjrapole to be established for the keeping of stray cattle and other animals and for protecting their lives. This was followed by a deed of declaration of trust executed on 2nd November, 1850. This shows that the institution mentioned in the earlier document had been established and the management of its funds had been placed in the hands of certain Banias under the superintendence of Sir Jamshedjee Jeejeebhoy and that out of the surplus funds collected Rupees 75, 057/- had been invested in the purchase of Government Promissory notes. The trustees were to stand possessed of the said notes and interest and dividends thereof upon trust for the use and benefit of the said institution3. 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. This document shows that a part of the surplus funds had been invested in the purchase of several pieces or parcels of lands, houses etc. and the new trustees were to stand possessed of the same upon trust for the use and benefit of the said institution. Another trust deed was executed on 5th September, 1851 by Khimchand Motichand, Sir 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 Island of Bombay, besides cash balances4. 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 animals in Surat meant for slaughter on the occasion of Bakri-Id 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 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 sacrified at Surat on Bakri-Id or Id-Kurbani occasions and for conveyance of the animals so purchased to be kept there according to the custom and rules of that institution. In 1915 the Government declared the institution as an infirmary under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (IX of 1890)5. 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, Bhiwandi 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-section (4) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act the Government of Maharasntra referred the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal constituted under 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 workmen6. 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 income the institution had was not at 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 achieve 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 rescued 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(v) bringing up of calves of the young cows under healthy conditions(b) The Managing Committee of trustees of the institution was advised that in fulfilment of their primary and only object of maintaining sick and infirm cattle and dogs etc, it was necessary that they should have healthy food and nutrition. Since milk from outside would not fulfil 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 surplus after feeding the old cows, motherless calves and dogs and other such animals was sold to members of public instead of being thrown off. The income derived therefrom was 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 or trustees nor was it produced and sold for the purpose of satisfying human needs or desires or with any object of rendering material service to the community(c) The cows which yielded milk were kept by the Panjrapole till the end of their lives. The milk derived from them could only be considered as natural and incidental product in the maintenance of cows9. The facts found by the Tribunal may be summarised as follows:-(1) At the end of the year 1962 there were altogether, 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 ducks18 and parrots 8: the total number was 1754(2) The total income for the year was Rupees 6,64,043 including the amount of Rupees 1,73,588 received by way of donation. The income proper was thus Rupees 4,90,459/-(3) Some lands of the institution were under its personal cultivation. The sale proceeds of the yield thereof was Rupees 6,492/-. The rent fetched by the immovable property was Rupees 2,20,549/- The milk yielded by the cows was regularly collected and sold, the sale proceeds for the year being 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 plying the carts or for cultivation of the lands of the institution(6) There were 36 head 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 institution10. 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.

Reasoning:
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