LexBOMBAY PANJRAPOLE, BHULESHWAR versus THE WORKMEN AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
202
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE, BHULESHWAR
A
l'.
THE WORKMEN AND ANOTHER
Augµst 16, 1971
{G.K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ,]
Industrial Dispuies Act, 1947-Section 2(j) -'Jndustry'-A
Panjrapole started initially as a charitable ins1itution b11t later
organised commercially-'-lf "Industry".
B
The appellant J'an.irapole was staited in 1834 as a charitable insti- c
tution for the caie and protection of animals. It expanded its aclivities
consi._d~rably i>yer tl'le years. The institution gradually diversified its
obk!'ts from only tending to the sick, infirm a11d unwanted cattle by
adopti11g a policy of keeping cattle not merely for their own sake but
fm: the sa,ke of improving the cattle population in order to get large
q\lantities of .mill> for sale ,an<l thereby get an income which would
augment its soim::j:S. The instittJtion was using stud bulls for the purpose I)
of"breeding healthy c.attle including cows sp as to be able to make a
sizable income from the sale of milk. The value of the milk sold was
considerable compared to the value of milk supplied to the sick and
inlirJ!I. cattle of the institution. The expenses for
treating the sick
animals was l!)so yery little compared to the total expenses of the ln-
stltm!.on. A l;uge number of workers were employed at the institution.
They raised an industrial dispute in relation to their wages and other
E
S!;rvice benefits. The dispute was ·referred for a<ljudication to the In-
. 1.lus(fial Tribunal. It was contended by the Appellant that the Insti-
tµtion was a charitable institution and therefore was not an 'industry'
wi.tbJn the meaning of s. 2(j) of the Industrial Pisputes Act. The Tribu-
~ fo11nd that the activities of the institution in connection with its
movable property and collection and sale of milk to be an "in<lustry"
while the maintenance of la111e, infirm and sick cows, dogs and otber
1''
anim~ls was hel<l not to ~onstitute an "industry".
A petition under Art. 227 was moved in the High Court fqr quash-
injl the .award of the Industrial Tribunal but the same was summarily
r~Jected. Dismissing the appeal,
JJ,EJ.,D: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bombay
G
PaPirap9le is an "Industry" within the meaning of Sec. 2(j) of the lndust-
ri;tl Qisputes Act. The activities of the Panjrapole, though charitable
at the begipning, was not exclusively so in later years, and the later
activities show that it was carried on as a business concern. Even the
vaJ~e Pf tile milk suppl~ for the last 3 or 4 years itself was well in excess
>Of Rs. 2 lal<:hs per anrnim app tbis ~oµld pnly be possible if the cows
11
amt !>!llfaloes h.ad been kept apd maintaineil not l)ler0ly to l!'eep the111
ilivi: but witb tl1' i4ea of J$tting 11s 111uc!i producti!:m out of them as
p9§si!lle lllJ.!I tbe J>a11jrapoll: was riln Ii~ 11 4air;y lirm. (nni:)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
BOMBAY PANJRAPOLE v. WORKMEN (Mitter, J.)
203
State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, (1960] 2 S .. C.R.
866, Safdar Jung Hospital, Ne.w Delhi v. K. S. Sethi & Ma11agem,ent
of M/s T. B. Hospital, New Delhi v. The Workmen, A.I.R. )970 S.C. 1407.
Gymkhana
Club
Union
v.
Managemellf,
[1968]
1
S.C.R.
742,
La/it Hari
Ayurvedic College Pharmacy v. Its Workers U1Jio11,
A.l.R. 1960 S.C. 1261, Madras Panjrapole v. Labour Court, [1960] 2 L.J;.l
686, Workmen Employed in Madras Panjrapole v. Madras Panjrapolc
(1962]2 L.L.J. 472, Cricket Club v. Labour Unicn, (1969] J S.C.R. 6CO,
Harinagar Cane Firm v. State of Bihar, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 45S, r.e,(err,ed .to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeal No.
J331 of 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated J;rnu.ary
20, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Ap-
plication No. 54 of 1966.
·
D. V. Patel and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
G. P. Pai, Bhajan Ram Rakhiani and R. [{. [{]1am1a,
for respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J. The question involved in this appeal py
special leave from. an order of the Bombay High Coufj:
rejecting summarily a petition under Art. 227 of the Consti-
tution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appro-
priate writ for examining the legality of the award made
by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra on July 27, 1965
and published in the Maharashtra Gazette on August 19,
19o5 and for quashing the same appears to be one of first
impression so far as· tl).is Court is concerned.
• m: appellant before this Court is aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.