Law Assignment - Bangalore Water Supply Case

SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Hyderabad
Post Graduate Diploma in Management
2019-21
Legal Aspects of Business Assignment
Case: Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

vs. A. Rajappa AIR 1978 SC 548.
SUBMITTED BY:
GARIMA RAI - 80303190106
SIDDHANT SETHIA – 80303190116
CASE ANALYSIS – Bangalore Water-Supply Vs R. Rajappa & Others
CITATIONS: 1978 AIR 548, 1978 SCR (3) 207
PETITIONER: BANGALORE WATER-SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, ETC.
RESPONDENT: R. RAJAPPA & OTHERS
RESPONDENT: R. RAJAPPA & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/02/1978
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The respondent employees were fined by the Appellant Board for misconduct
and various sums were recovered from them. Therefore, they filed a Claims
Application No. 5/72 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
alleging that the said punishment was imposed in violation of the principles of
natural justice.
2. The appellant Board raised a preliminary objection before the Labour Court that
the Board, a statutory body performing what is in essence a regal function by
providing the basic amenities to the citizens, is not an industry within the
meaning of the expression under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and
consequently the employees were not workmen and the Labour Court had no
jurisdiction to decide the claim of the workmen.
3. This objection being over-ruled, the appellant Board filed two Writ ‘Petitions
before the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore. The Division Bench of that High
Court dismissed the petitions and held that the appellant Board is “industry”
within the meaning ‘of the expression under section 2(i) of the Industrial,
Disputes Act, 1947.
4. The appeals by Special Leave, considering “the chances of confusion from the
crop ‘of cases in an area where the common man has to understand and apply
the law and the desirability that there should be, comprehensive, clear and
conclusive declaration as to what is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act
as it stands” were placed for consideration by a larger Bench.
ISSUES INVOLVED
1. The issue in the case was that whether Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board will fall under the definition of ‘Industry’ and in fact,
particularly the issue was what is an ‘Industry’ under Section 2(j) of the
Industrial Dispute Act?
2. Whether Charitable Institutions Are Industries?
3. Do clubs and other organizations whose general emphasis is not on profit-
making but fellowship and self-service fit into the definitional circle?
4. Would a university or college or school or research institute be called an
industry?
5. Could a lawyer’s chamber or chartered accountant’s office, a doctor’s clinic or
other liberal profession’s occupation or calling be designated an industry?
6. Are governmental functions, strict sense, industrial and if not, what is the
extent of the immunity of instrumentalities of government?
7. Whether Sovereign or Regal functions will be industry?
8. Whether Municipal Corporations Industry?
9. Whether Hospital is Industry?
10. What is the meaning of the term ‘industry’?
JUDGMENT
It held that the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board will fall under the
definition of the industry and by justifying this it gave an elaborating definition
of industry.
1. ‘Industry’, as defined in Section 2(j) and explained in Banerjee, has a wide
import. (a) Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by co-operation
between employer and employee, (the direct and substantial element is
chimerical) (iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services
calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but
inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss e.g. making,
on a large scale, Prasad or food), prima facie, there is an ‘industry’ in that
enterprise.
(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture
in the public, joint private or other sector.
(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the
activity with special emphasis on the employer-employee relations.
(d) If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be on because
of philanthropy animating the undertaking.
TRIPLE TEST
After the Bangalore Water supply case the Supreme Court came up with a
working principle called as ‘triple test’
 There should be systematic Activity
 Organized by Co-operation between employer and employee
For the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy
human wants and wishes.
The following points were also emphasized in this case:

1. Industry does not include spiritual or religious services or services geared to
celestial bliss
2. Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in
the public, joint, private or other sector.
3. The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity
with special emphasis on the employer- employee relationship
4. If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because
of philanthropy animating the undertaking Therefore, the consequences of the
decision in this case are that professions, clubs, educational institutions co-
operatives, research institutes, charitable projects and other kindred
adventures, if they fulfil the triple test stated above cannot be exempted from
the scope of section 2(j) of the Act.
REASON FOR THE DECISION
1. Focusing solely on the merits of the case it is a super judgment which has
taken into consideration the social and economic culture of our country.
2. The decision is distinctly pro- labour as it seeks to bring more activities
within the fold of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.
CONCLUSION
1. The Supreme Court has restored judicial discipline and thereby prevented an
unnecessary court-initiated turmoil in the area of labour law by giving a
judgment in Bangalore Water Supply case.
2. Seven Judges of the Apex Court had given a widely ranging definition of
“industry” under the Act and ever since, the case has been applied as law
throughout the country.
3. The Parliament which had amended the definition of “industry” in 1982
restricted the wide meaning given by the Bangalore Water Supply case. The
new definition sought to exclude institutions like hospitals, dispensaries,
educational, scientific and research or training institutes, institutions
engaged in charitable, social philanthropic services. It was also proposed to
exclude sovereign functions of the Government including activities like
atomic energy, space and defense research.
4. The wide definition of “industry” has given opportunity to both the employer
and the employee to raise issues i.e. one trying to pull out of this definition,
to be out of the clutches of the said Act, and the other bringing within it to
receive benefits under it.

Law Assignment - Bangalore Water Supply Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law Assignment - Bangalore Water Supply Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law Assignment - Bangalore Water Supply Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Hyderabad

Post Graduate Diploma in Management

Legal Aspects of Business Assignment

Case: Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

The following points were also emphasized in this case:

You might also like