THE AHMEDABAD TEXTILE INDUSTRY'S RESEARCH ASSOCIATION versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 17-11-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

November I7. 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
THE AHMEDABAD TEXTILE INDUSTRY'S 
RESEARCH ASSOCIATION 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Research Institute, if an industry-
"lndustry", Meaning of-Test-Industrial Disputes Act, z947 (I4 
of z947J, s. Z(J). 
The appellant association was founded in 1947 and the 
object of the founders was to establish a textile research insti-
tute for the purpose of carrying on research and other scientific 
work in connection with the textile trade or industry and other 
trade and industry allied therewith or necessary thereto. The 
cost of maintaining the association was met partly by members 
and partly by grants from Government and other sources. 
The activity of the association was systematically under-
taken; its object was to render material services to a part of the 
community, namely, member-mills, the material services being 
the discovery of process of manufacture etc., with a view to 
secure greater efficiency, rationalisation and reduction of costs of 
the member-mills; it was being carried on with the help of em-
ployees some of whom were technical personnel on payment of 
remuneration, they had no rights in the results of the research 
carried on by them as employees of the Association which were 
the property of the Association and it was organised or arranged 
in the manner in which a trade or business is generally orgams-
ed. 
Disputes arose between the appellant and its workmen which 
related to wage-scale and dearness allowance and payment of 
house-rent allowance which was referred for adjudication. The ap-
pellant questioned the reference on the ground that the appellant 
was not an industry and that the Tribunal was wrong in holding 
that the appellant was included within the definition of theword 
"Industry" of s. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and con-
tended that it was a research centre in the nature of educational 
activity and therefore had no analogy with activities in the 
nature of trade or business. 
The question therefore was whether appellant was an under-
taking within the meaning of s. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes 
Act and its activities satisfied the tests laid down in State of 
Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha. 
HelrJ, that the manner in which the activity in question was 
organised or arranged, the condition of the co-operation between 
employer and employee necessary for its success and its object to 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
481 
render material service to the community could be regarded as 
1960 
some of the features which would be distinctive activities to 
which s. 2 (j) of the Act could be applied. 
The Ahmedabad 
h . 
h 
. 
h" h h 
. t" 
Te,.We Industry's 
In t e lllStant case, t e manner m w ic t e associa ion was 
R 
h 
organised clearly shows that the undertaking as a whole was in 
eseare 
· 
Association 
the nature of business and trade organised with the object of 
discovery of ways and means by which member-mills may obtain 
Th 5
~· 1 
larger profits in connection with their industries. The activity n 
be 
; e 0~{ 
of the association was clearly within the definition of the word °"' ay 
ers 
"Industry" in s. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and could not 
be assimilated to a purely educational institution and satisfies 
th.e test laid down in the State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor 
Silhha.. Thus the Association is an undertaking within the mean-
ing of s. 2(j) of the Act. 
When this dispute arose between the Association and its 
employees it was an industrial dispute and could be properly 
referred for adjudication under the Act. 
Tiu; State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, [1960) 
2 S.C.R. 866 followed. 
The Federated States School Teachers' 
Association v. The State of Victoria, (1929) 41 C.L.R. 569 not 
applicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No. 22 
of 1959. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Award dated the 
31st October, 1957, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bom-
bay in Reference (I. T.) No. 141 of 1957. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, J. B. 
Melda and J. N. Shroff for the Appellant. 
Vidya Dhar Mahajan, K. L. Hathi and R.H. Dhebm· 
for Respondent No. 1. 
N. C. Shah, President, Engineering Mazdoor Sabha 
for Respondent No. 3. 
1960. November 17. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave 
wanehoo J. 
against the award of the Industrial Tribuna

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