STATE 0]' BOMBAY & OTHERS versus THE HOSPITAL MAZDOOR SABHA & OTHER

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 866 · Decided: 29-01-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 22 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] 
I960 
to the Government. The licence issued by the Govern-
-
ment is an exercise of the statutory power under the 
J. v. Goilal & Co. relevant Act. 
Whether the petitioner sold the goods 
Ass~·tant 
to the Government or to a third party, he had to 
Collector of 
obtain a licence. 
Indeed in the present case, the 
Sales-Tax• 
licence was given to the seller with the express object 
of fulfilling the contracts with the Government and 
Subba Rao J. 
was issued several days after the contracts were 
executed, and indeed the Government took the licence 
from the seller and cleared the goods through their 
officer. 
Ig60 
January 29 
For all the foregoing reasons we hold that the 
property in the goods passed to the Government of 
India when the shipping documents were delivered 
to them against payment. It follows that the sale 
of the gooQ.s by the petitioner to the Government of 
India took place when the goods were on the high 
seas. 
That being so, the sales in question must be held 
to have taken place in the course of the impor~ into 
India and therefore they would be exempted from 
sales tax under Art. 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. 
In this view, no other question. would arise for 
consideration. In the result the order of the Assistant 
Collector of Sales Tax is set aside and that of the 
Sales Tax Officer is restored. The respondents will 
pay the costs of the petitioner. 
Petition allowed. 
STATE 0]' BOMBAY & OTHERS 
v. 
THE HOSPITAL MAZDOOR SABHA & OTHERS 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND 
K. 0. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Industrial 
Dispu.te-Retrenchment of worhmen by hospital 
without 
compc11satio11-V alidity-H ospital, 
if 
an 
industry-
' l ndustry' Meaning-Industrial Disputes Act. I947 (I4 of Ig47). 
ss. 2(j). 25F. 25r. 
The serYices of respondents 2 and 3, · engaged as 'vard 
eervants in the J. J. Group of Hospital, Bombay, under State 
' 
-
control and management were retrenched without payment of 
...
compensation as required bys. 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes 
...
; 
-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
867 
Act, 1947. The respondents applied to the High Court for a 
writ of mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 
The 
Ig6o 
single Judge who heard the matter held that non-payment of State of Bombay 
retrenchment compensation did not render the retrenchment 
orders invalid as s. 251 of the Act provided a specific remedy for 
its recovery and dismissed the application. The Division Bench 
on appeal reversed the decision of the single Judge upholding the 
v. 
The Hospital 
Mazdoor Sabha 
respondents' contention that the said hospitals were an industry Gajendragadkar ]. 
as defined by s. 2(j) of the Act and non-payment of retrenchment 
compensation rendered the retrenchment bad in law. On appeal 
by the State of Bombay. 
Held, that the decision of the Division Bench was right and 
must be affirmed. 
The mandatory language of s. · 25F(b) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947, plain and unambiguous in effect, leaves no 
manner of doubt that the payment of compensation as required 
by it is a condition precedent to retrenchment and that s. 251 of 
the Act is intended to provide for the recovery of other monies 
that became due to the employees under Ch. V of the Act. 
The object and the scope of the Act, as apparent from its 
various provisions, made it amply clear that the Legislature in 
defining the the word 'industry' in s. 2(j) of the Act was 
deliberately using term of wide import in its first clause and 
referring to several other industries in the second in an inclusive 
way obviously denoting extention.- In construing the definition, 
therefore, it is inappropriate to apply the maxim noscitur a sociis 
so as to restrict its meaning. The maxim is a rule of construction 
and can apply only where the intention of the Legislature in 
associating terms of wider import with those or narrower import 
or the meaning of the wider terms used is in doubt. 
The corporation of Glasgow v. Glasgow Tramway and Omnibus 
Co. Ltd., 1898 A. C. 631, referred to. 
Nor can undue importance be attached to the conventional 
meaning attributed to trade or business in construing the wide 
words of the definition since it has lost some of its force and can 
no longer be wholly valid for the purpose of industrial adjudica-
tion in a modern welfare state. It is clear that the presence of a 
profit motive or the investment of capital, traditionally associated 
with notion of trade and b

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