HARINAGAR CANE FARM AND OTHERS versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 21-03-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
Sirsillc ltd 
y, 
Go1.trnmtrd of 
111.dhra p,::dtih 
H'muhoo J. 
1963 
M~ch 21 
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l!JH4] VOL. 
settlement 
ha.~ already come into force in order 
to avoid possible conflict between a binding settle-
ment under s. 18 (I) and a biuding award undrr 
s. 18 (3). 
In such a situation we arc of opinion that 
the Government ought not to publish the award 
under s. 17 (I) and in cases where governmrnt is go-
ing to publish it, it can be directed not to publish 
the award in view of the binding settlement arrived 
at between the parties under s. 18 (I) with respect to 
the very matters which were the subject-matter of 
adjudication under the award. We therefore allow 
the appeals and direct the Government not to pu bfah 
the awards sent to it by the industrial tribunal in 
these cases in view of the b;nding nature of the 
settlements arrived at between the parties under 
s. 18 (I) of the Act. In the circumstances we order 
the parties to bear their own costs. 
.4 ppea/s allawed. 
HARJNAGAR CANE FARM A:-10 OTHERS 
1). 
STATE OF BIHAR A:'{D OTHERS 
(P. B. GA.TENDRAOAIJK!R, K. 
~-
WANCHOO 
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) 
b1dU&trial Di .. pule-Agricultural operation, if constitute. 
"indtMlry"-InatUlrial Di•putu Act, J.947 (U of 1947) •· 2(j). 
The appellant in appeal C. A. No. 31 of 196 I is a private 
limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. 
It mainly produce. sugarcane. It also produces wheat, paddy 
etc., for sale in the market. 
Further it undertakes contract 
works for maintaining tram lines, 
weigh bridge, tlc. The 
appellant in the other appeal has been purchased hy Hari-
nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and since then is functioning as a 
department of the said Mills. 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
459 
An industrial dispute raised by the workmen of the 
respective appellants had been referred by respondent No. I the 
State of Bihar to an indu~trial tribunal for adjudication. 
The 
appdlants moved the Patna High Court under Art. 226 on the 
ground 
that the agricultural (;pt"rations carried on by the 
appdl1nts did not constitute an industry and therefore respon-
dent No. l had no jurisdiction to refer the d isputc for adjudica-
tion. The High Court repelled this contention and rejected 
the petition. The present appeals have been filed by way of 
special leave granted by this Court. 
It was contended on behalf of lhe appellant that the legis-
lative histcry for the past 50 l ears in this country including 
Art. 43 of the Con'iititution and the relevant entries in the con-
stitution sho\v that a sharp distinction is drawn between in .. 
dusty on the one hand and agriculture on the other and that 
where the legislature wants to include agriculture within the 
scope of industrial legh,lation it makes a specific and express 
provisions on that behalf. 
The respondents relying on s. 2(g) of the Minimum 
Wages Act, 1948, contended that this important statutory 
enactment for the benefit of workers expressly includes within 
its purview workmen employed in agriculture. 
It was con-
tended on the other side that the word 'industry' ins. 2 (j) in 
its broad connotat-ion would include agriculture and if the 
legislature had intended to exclude agriculture from the scope 
of s. 2 (j) it would have expressly done so. 
Held that in dealing with industrial matters industrial 
adjudication 
should referain from enunciating any general 
principles 
or adopting 
any 
doctrinaire- considerations and 
therefore the large question as to whether all 
agricultural 
operations arc included within the definition of s. 2 (j) is not 
decided in this case. 
On examination of the facts of these cases before the 
court it is· found that the appellants are limited companies 
which have been formed, inter alia, for the expre'5 purpose 
of carrying on trade or business 1 they have invested a large 
amount ·of capital for carrying on their agricultural operations 
in order to make profit and the workmen employed by the 
appellants contribute to the production of agricutural com-
modities which bring in profit. In these circumstances even 
the narrow concept of trade or busines> is s3ti1fied and the 
agricultural operations carried on by the appellants fall within 
·the definition of "industry" in s. 2 (j). 
1963 
Hariruzgar Carre Farm 
v. 
S··•tt ef Bilulr 
1963 
Harino1ar C!Jllt Furn 
v 
State • Bih.r 
Gajtrdr11aiUT I. 
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l!lti4] VOL. 
Case Law reviewed. 
IJ. iY. Banerji v. P.R. Mukhrrjee, [1

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