A.Kadirvelu v. Sai Samaj (Regd.,)

2.1 The appellant is the petitioner in the said writpetition. According to him, he was employed under the 3rdrespondent viz. All India Sai Samaj (regtd), Mylapore, Chennai-4,as typist-cum-clerk since May 1984 on a consolidated salary ofRs.500/- per month and thereafter the said salary was increased toRs.700/- per month. Subsequently, the salary was reduced toRs.500/- per month, which was objected to by the petitioner. Thepetitioner was terminated on 1.6.1989. 2.2 The petitioner filed an Industrial Dispute case inI.D.No.739 of 1989 on 4.8.1989. The Labour Court, Madras, passedthe award on 15.10.1993 holding that the All India Sai Samaj isnot an industry and therefore the Industrial Dispute raised by thepetitioenr is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed the saidcase I.D.No.739 of 1989, against which, the above said writpetition was filed before this Court. A learned single Judge ofthis Court after hearing both sides has dismissed the writpetition on the ground that Samaj is not an industry.

Aggrievedby the findings of the learned Single Judge of this Court in theabove said writ petition, the present writ appeal has beenpreferred by the writ petitioner. 3. Now the point for determination in this writ appeal iswhether the 3rd respondent, the employer of theappellant/petitioner is an Industry to come within the ambit ofthe provision under the Industrial Dispute Act?4.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is norepresentation for the respondents 2 and 3.5.The learned counsel for the appellant would contend thatthe respondents 2 & 3 even though religious institutions, arecarrying on commercial activities and the appellant was paid wagesby his employer 3rd respondent and hence, it would come under thepurview of the Industrial Act, 1947. According to the learnedcounsel for the appellant, 3rd respondent is engaged in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ commercial activities by maintaining Kalyanamandapam and alsoselling the printing materials and collecting huge revenue andhence, will come under the ambit of Section 2(J) of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947.

The Labour Court relying on the judgment ofthe Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1978(1) LLJ 349(Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Etc., Etc., Vs.A.Rajappa and other, Etc., Etc.,) has held that Samaj is not anindustry. The relevant observation in the above said ratiodecidendi of the Honourable Apex Court relevant for the purpose ofdeciding this writ appeal is as follows:-"Industry, as defined in Section 2(j) and explainedin Banerji's case has a wide import.I. (a) Where (i) systematic activity; (ii) organised byco-operation between employer and employee (the directand substantial element is commercial); (iii) for theproduction and/or distribution of goods and servicescalculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (notspiritual or religious but inclusive of material thingsor services geared to celestial bliss, i.s., making on alarge-scale of (prasad or foo) prima facie, there is anindustry in that enterprise.

(b) Absence of profit-motive or gainful objective isirrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint orprivate or other sector. (c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test isthe nature of the activity with special emphasis on theemployer-employee relations. (d) If the organisation is a trade or business, it doesnot cease to be one because of philanthropy animating theundrtaing. What is an Industry has been defined in Section 2(j) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as follows:- "industry means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes anycalling service, employment, handicraft, or industrialoccupation or avocation of workmen"An industry is a continuity, is an organized activity, isa purposeful pursuit – not any isolated adventuredesultory excursion or casual, fleeting engagementmotivelessly undertaken. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the Samajwas dominantly involved in business activities. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The workmen employed by the Trust formed a union andsubmitted the demands in respect of pay scales and otherconditions of service. The demands were not accepted andthereupon the Union sought a reference and the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act madereference to the Industrial Tribunal. Bombay in respect ofdemands consisting of wages, dearness allowance and festivalholidays and only under such circumstances, it was held in thesaid judgment that the said Trust is to be construed as anindustry. The above said facts will not be applicable to thepresent facts of the case. In the case on hand 3rd respondent, AllIndia Sai Samaj, is the one registered under the SocietiesRegistration Act and it is in evidence that the organization hasbeen established to fulfill the good ideals and principles of the Sri Sai and to promote the people and that there is no motive formaking any profits or to get goods.

As per evidence of M.W.1 onthe side of the respondents, in the Samaj prayers are conductedevery now and then in prescribed days special prayers/poojas arealso conducted. M.W.1 has also deposed to the fact that the Samajis offering medical aid to the poor and also running school forpoor children and that the Samaj was indulging dominantly inreligious activities and that there was absolutely no evidence onrecord to show that Samaj was indulging in commercial activities https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to bring home the case within the ambit of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, to declare the Samaj as an industry. Thealleged marriage hall was let out for meagre rent of Rs.1,000/-and that for the members of the Samaj marriage hall was let outfor Rs.101/- and that collected rent is being used for themaintenance of the marriage hall. Under such circumstances, thereis absolutely no evidence on record to show that the Samaj comesunder the definition of Section 2(J) of the Industrial Dispute Actto declare the same as an industry. Under such circumstances, theorder passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15660 of 1994on 28.6.2001 in over considered view does not warrant anyinterference.