AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE versus SHRI ASHOK HARIKUNI AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 22-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE 
A 
v. 
SHRI ASHOK HARIKUNI AND ANR. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2000 
[A.P. MISRA AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.) 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S.20) 
"Industry" -Determination of-Agricultural Produce Marketing 
Committee-Statutory Corporation engaged in regulating marketing and C 
trading of agricultural produce-None of the functions were "sovereign" or 
inalienable-Most of the fanctions .capable of being performed by private 
persons or bodies-Held, falls within the ambit of "industry "-Karnataka 
Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966. 
"Sovereignfanctions" of State-What are-Held, exclusively inalienable, D 
not amenable to jurisdiction of ordinarily Civil Court and not capable of 
being undertaken by any private person or body. 
Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966-
S. 59(3)-Applicability of l.D. Act under-Exclusion of-Held, is limited to E 
the extent specified-Thus, by necessary implication applicable to other 
fields-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Interpretation of Statutes 
"Industry"-Ascertainment of-Doctrine of Pith and Substance- F 
Applicability of. 
Words & Phrases 
"Industry"; "Sovereign function "-Meaning of in the context of S.20) 
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
"Appropriate Government"-Meaning of in the context of S.2(a) of 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
G 
The issue involved in the present appeal was whether the appellant-
Agricultural Produce Market Committee established under the Karnataka 
379 
H 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (State Act) was an 
"industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (Central Act). 
Respondents, temporary employees working with appellant-Marketing 
Committee were terminated from service. Labour Court set aside the 
termination order and directed reinstatement of respondents. Aggrieved, 
B appellant-Marketing Committee filed a writ petition before the High Court 
contending that it was not an "industry" within the meaning of the Central 
Act and thus Labour Court had no jurisdiction to try the cases of its 
employees. Rejecting the said contention the writ petition as well as the writ 
appeal were dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
C 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the nature of functions 
of the marketing committee were "sovereign" functions of the State and 
thus, it could not be considered to be an "industry" under the Central Act; 
the power of appointment of various employees under the State Act was only 
with the State Government and once a person was appointed under the State 
Act his services would not be governed by the Central Act; that the functions 
D of the Market Committee was to safeguard the interest of the agriculturalist 
and not for making any profit. 
HELD : 1. Appellant-Agricultural Produce Market Committee 
established under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing 
(Regulation) Act, 1966 is an "industry" within the meaning ofS.2(j) of the 
E Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, both the Labour Court and High Court 
were justified in holding the respondent-employees were "Workmen" under 
the Central Act. [402-A-B] 
2.1. Every governmental function need not be "sovereign". State activities 
are multifarious. From the primal sovereign power, which exclusively 
F 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. Even if a statute confers 
on any statutory body, any function which could be construed to be "sovereign" 
G in nature would not mean every other functions under the same statute to 
be also sovereign. The Court should examine the statute to severe one from 
the other by comprehensively examining various provisions of that statute. 
Thus, in interpreting any statute to find if it is "industry" or not the court 
has to find its pith and substance. [395-C, D, E] 
H 
Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage Board etc. v. R. Rajappa and 
AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE MARKET COMMITTEE'" ASHOK HARIKUNI 
381 
Ors., [1978] 3 SCR 207 and Chief Conservator of Forests and Anr. v. A 
Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and Ors., [1996] 2 SCC 293, relied on. 
N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of A.P., [1994) 6 SCC 205 and Des 
Raj and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Or

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.