GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM versus S. SRINIVASA RAO AND ORS .

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 18-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
A 
GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM 
• 
S. SR IN IV ASA RAO AND ORS . 
NOVEMBER 18, 1997 
B 
[J.S. VERMA, CJ., B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 20) 
Telecom Department of Union of India-Engaged in commercial 
C activity-Not discharging any sovereign fi111clio11 of the Stale-Whether 
industry-Held, yes. 
Practice and Procedure 
Seven Judge Bench decision defining "'industry-Two Judge Bench 
D decision on the point without reference to the seven Judge Bench-Later Two 
Judge Bench taking conflicting view-Validity of-Held, it is not permissible 
for any smaller Bench lo take a view contrary to the view taken by a larger 
Bench or to by-pass that decision so long as it holds the field 
Appellant-Department of Telecom of Union of India has preferred the 
E present appeal against High Court's decision holding that the appellant 
Department was an "industry" within the meaning of definition of"industry" 
in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
F 
: 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. Telecommunication Department of Union of India is an 
"industry" within the definition of section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 because it is engaged in commercial activity and the Department is not 
discharging any of the sovereign function of the State. 1215-C( 
G 
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors. 
1197812 sec 213, followed. 
2. It is not permissible for any Bench of lesser strength to take a view 
contrary to that of a larger Bench or to by pass that decision so long as it 
holds the field. A two Judge Bench of this Court in Theyyam Joseph's case 
H held that the functions of Postal Department are part of the sovereign 
212 
GEN. MANAGER TELECOM v. S.S. RAO [VERMA, CJ.] 
213 
functions of the State and it is therefore not an 'industry' within the definition A 
of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This decision was 
rendered without any reference to the Seven Judge Bench decision in 
Bangalore Water Supply case. Similarly in a later two Judge Bench decision 
in Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees' Association case after referring 
to the decision in Bangalore Water Supply case took a conflicting view. Thus B 
the decision in Theyyam Joseph's case and Bombay Telephone Canteen 
Employees case cannot be treated as laying down the correct law. 
(215-G-H; 216-A( 
• 
Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post, Vaikam & Ors. v. Theyyam Joseph & 
Ors., (1996) 8 SCC 489 and Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees' C 
Association v. Union of India, AIR (1997) SC 2817, overruled. 
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors., 
( 1978) 2 sec 213, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CIVIL Appeal No. 7845of1997. D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.96 of the Andhra Pradesh High 
Court in W.A. No. 1025of1996. 
N.N. Goswami, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Anubha Jain and Ms. 
Kanupriya Mittal for the Appellant. 
E 
Rakesh Luthra, Ms. Pooja Dua and L.R. Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
VERMA, C.J. Delay condoned. 
F 
Leave granted. 
This matter comes up before a three-Judge Bench because of a Reference 
made by a two-Judge Bench which doubted the correctness of an earlier two-
Judge Bench decision of this Court in Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post, G 
Vaikam & Ors. V. Theyyam Joseph & Ors., [1996) 8 sec 489. It was stated . 
at the Bar that a later two-Judge Bench decision reported as Bombay Telephone 
Canteen Employees' Association 'v. Union of India, AIR (1997) Supreme 
Court 2817 also takes the same view as in the case of Theyyam Joseph. 
The only point for decision in this appeal is whether the Telecom H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Department of the Union of India is an industry within the meaning of the 
definition of 'industry' in Section 20) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It 
may here be observed that the amendment made in that definition in 1982 has 
not been brought into force by the Central Government by issuance of 
notification required for the purpose. It is, therefore not necessary for us to 
B consider whether the Telecommunication Department of the Union of India 
would be an 'industry' within the meaning thereof in the amended provision 
which is not yet brought into force. We are, in this matter, concerned with 
the earlier definition of 'industry' which continues to be in force and which 
was,subject of consideration by a seven Judge Bench in Banga

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