9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (9) TMI 930 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the appellant, an Agricultural Produce Market Committee established under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 is an industry as contemplated under the Central Act ? If yes, Will not employee under the State Act would be governed by the Central Act ? Will not the State Act override the Central Act for the reason, the State Act received the assent of the President of India, hence the Central Act would be inapplicable to the employees governed by the State Act ? Held that - Appeal dismissed. In view of the settled legal principle the width of industry being of widest amplitude and testing it in the present case, in view of the preamble, Objects and Reasons and the scheme of the Act, the pre-dominant object clearly being regulation and control of trading of agricultural produce, thus appellant-committee including its functionaries cannot be said to be performing functions which are sovereign in character. Most of its functions could be undertaken even by private persons. Thus the appellant would fall within the definition of industry under section 2(j) of the Central Act. In view of this, we uphold that respondent-employees are workman under the Central Act as held by the Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court. The Labour Court has dealt with each individual cases and came to the conclusion in favour of respondent-employees which has also been confirmed by learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court, which does not call for any interference
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant, an Agricultural Produce Market Committee, is an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Whether employees under the State Act would be governed by the Central Act. 3. Whether the State Act overrides the Central Act due to the President's assent. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the appellant, an Agricultural Produce Market Committee, is an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The Supreme Court examined the definition of 'industry' under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court noted that the term 'industry' has a wide and inclusive definition, causing continuous disputes about its scope. The appellant argued that the Market Committee's functions are sovereign in nature, thus excluding it from being an 'industry'. However, the Court referred to previous judgments, including Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa, which emphasized that not all governmental functions are sovereign. The Court stated that sovereign functions are limited to legislative power, administration of law, and judicial power. The Court concluded that the Market Committee's activities, such as regulating agricultural produce marketing, are not sovereign functions and can be performed by private entities. Therefore, the Market Committee qualifies as an 'industry' under the Central Act. 2. Whether employees under the State Act would be governed by the Central Act: The Court analyzed the relationship between the State Act and the Central Act concerning the employees of the Market Committee. The appellant contended that the employees are governed by the State Act, which received the President's assent, thus overriding the Central Act. However, the Court found that the State Act does not explicitly exclude the application of the Central Act. The Court emphasized that the dominant nature of the Market Committee's functions aligns with the definition of 'industry' under the Central Act, making its employees 'workmen' under the Central Act. The Court upheld the Labour Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving the Market Committee's employees. 3. Whether the State Act overrides the Central Act due to the President's assent: The appellant argued that the State Act, having received the President's assent, should override the Central Act. The Court examined section 59(3) of the State Act, which states, "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947," and concluded that this provision only limits the application of the Central Act concerning compensation for transferred employees. The Court found no broader exclusion of the Central Act's applicability. Therefore, the State Act does not override the Central Act in governing the employment conditions of the Market Committee's employees. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the Agricultural Produce Market Committee is an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employees of the Market Committee are governed by the Central Act, and the State Act does not override the Central Act. The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Labour Court's jurisdiction and the High Court's decisions, and upheld the reinstatement of the terminated employees.
|
