KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 22-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 22, 1990 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(j)-"lndustry"-Real 
Estate Company-Letting our premises and rendering various services, 
;. -Electricity and Water supply, washing and cleaning, electrical and sani-
tary repairs, lift services etc. to tenants-Employing workers for 
maintenance-Held the activity carried on by the company is "industry". 
Sections 2(b), (p), 19(2), 6 & 7-"Award"-"Settlement"-
Termination of-Formal notice of termination of settlement is not 
necessary-Notice of termination can be inferred from the correspon-
.,,.. dence between the parties. 
Constitution of India, 
1950: Article 133( l)(a)-Appeal to 
Supreme Court-Raising fresh plea involving questions of fact cannot 
be allowed at the appellate stage. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Article 226-Writ petition challenging findings of Industrial 
Tribunal-High Court should generally consider the material placed 
E 
'hefore the Tribunal-Fresh and further material should not be allowed 
to be placed before the High Court. 
The appellant, a real estate company, was engaged in the business 
• 
o_ f letting out its property on lease, Besides it was also rendering various 
..-..services to its tenants such as electricity and water supply, washing and . F 
cleaning, lift services, electrical and sanitary repairs on payment basis. 
For rendering these services the appellant-company employed a 
!number of workmen. 
A dispute arose between the employees and the appellant-com-
pany with regard to wages, scales of pay, dearness allowance and 
G 
gratuity. The State Government referred the disputes to Industrial Tri-
bunal for adjudication. The appellant-company contested the reference 
before the Tribunal by raising a preliminary objection that the alleged 
dispute was not an industrial dispute and that the reference was barred 
.;,y Section 19 of the. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since there was an 
earlier binding award, based on settlement with the Union, which was 
H 
not terminated by either parties . 
. 933 
A 
B 
c 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990) 3 S.C.R. 
By an order dated August 24, 1968 the Tribunal overruled the 
preliminary objection and gave the award dated March 3, 1969 enham·-" 
ing the dearness allowance of the employees. The Tribunal also framed 
a revised gratuity scheme but did not fix any grades and pay scales of 
workmen for want of convincing evidence. 
The appellant-company filed a writ petition in the High Court 
challenging the Tribunal's order dated August 24, 1968 as well as the 
Award dated March 7, 1969 contending: (i) that the Award was without 
jurisdiction because the appellant.company was not carrying on·---
~, 
'industry' and the alleged dispute was not an 'Industrial Dispute' and 
that the previous Award was not terminated and was still subsisting; (ii) 
that no dispute was raised between the workmen and the appellant 
prior to the reference before the Tribunal; and (iii) that the Tribunal 
1
did not consider the appellant's capacity to pay dearness allowance to 
the workmen. A single judge of the High Court dismissed the writ 
.... ! 
petition by rejecting all the contentions. 
D 
The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the single 
E 
F 
G 
judge before a Division Bench of the High Court which was also 
dismissed. 
Against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the 
appellant-company filed an appeal to this Court, contending: (i) that 
the High Court was in error in holding that the appellant was an"' 
'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Act; (ii) that the Tribunal was not 
competent to make the Award since the earlier Award, which was in the 
nature of a settlement under Section 2(p), was not terminated in accor-
dance with section 19(2) by giving a formal written notice; (iii) that 
there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 19(7) of the 
Act; and (iv) that the Industrial Tribunal was in error in making the 
A ward in relation to Dearness Allowance without examining the capa- . 
city to pay the additional amount and that the High Court should have-\ 
remanded the matter to the Tribunal fOr considering this issue in the 
light of the documents which were submitted by the appellant before the 
High Court. 
Dismissing appeal, this Court, 
HELD: I. The activity carried on by the appellant company falls I--
within the ambit of the expression "industry" defined in Section 2(j) of 
th

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