BANGLORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD V. A. RAJAPPA & others (1978)

 BANGLORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD V. A. RAJAPPA & others (1978)

BY: MADHAV CHAUHAN

Facts of the case: -

In this case of Bangalore water supply (1978), The employee named A Rajappa had a dispute with Bangalore water supply board. The reason for the dispute between employee and the board was because all the employees of the particular board they were charged a certain amount of fine for misconduct during their employment and the amount of fine was a very heavy and not reasonable according to the employees and their earning it was way too much for them.

The employee filed an application in the labour court under section 33(2) of the industrial dispute act stating that the fine that has been imposed upon on the employees was a violation of principles of natural justice.

Principal of natural justice: fair opportunity and free from bias. The decision given by the judge must not be biased and both the parties are to be heard. On the basis of violation of principle of natural justice, they have filed this application to the labour court.

Bored in defence to the labour court stated that we are not in industry under section 2(j) So labour court has no jurisdiction over the Bangalore water supply board.

LABOUR COURT:

Objection raised by board was overruled then board filed at two writ petitions under article 226 of the Indian constitution to the High Court. 

HIGH COURT:

The High Court also dismissed the writ petition stating that the Bangalore water supply board is an industry under section 2(j) of the act. Again, their objection was overruled and they went to Supreme Court.

SUPREME COURT:

Supreme court with a seven-judge bench heard the case, before this case many cases were heard but no amendment in the definition. The Supreme Court stated that the term industry needed a wider meaning not in the Narrow form

Supreme Court laid down some principles to determine whether in enterprise established is an industry or not

1. An Activity

• Systematic activity

• Co-operation between employer & employees

• Production/Distribution of goods

2. Profit motive is immaterial

3. charitable nature also in material

4. dominant nature test (identification of dominant activity)

Exception to industry

1.small clubs, Gurukul, school, colleges (which has known employee character)

2.single doctor/lawyer (because no organised labour)

3.free legal or medical services

4.casual activities because they are not systematic

5.sovereign function as it maintains the law order, legislative and judicial function (police, judge, judicial person).

THE FINAL JUDGEMENT

Appeal the judgement given by seven judge was dismissed. Supreme Court referred this matter to 9 judge benches as a result later in 1982 Parliament amended the definition of industry u/s 2(j)