1963 (4) TMI 71 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the work carried on by the University of Delhi constitutes an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Whether the applications made under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the respondents were competent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition of "Industry" under Section 2(j):
The primary issue was whether the University of Delhi's activities could be classified as an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondents argued that the term "industry" should be interpreted broadly, including educational services. They referenced the decision in the State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, which defined "industry" as any systematic activity involving cooperation between employers and employees for the production or distribution of goods or services.

Analysis:
The court examined whether the educational activities of the University of Delhi involved the kind of employer-employee cooperation typical of an industrial undertaking. It was noted that the primary function of educational institutions is to impart education, primarily through the labor and cooperation of teachers. The court highlighted that teachers are not considered "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Act, which excludes them from the benefits of the Act. This exclusion indicates that the Act does not intend to cover educational activities as industries. The court concluded that the work of imparting education, which is primarily carried out by teachers, cannot be classified as an industry. The court emphasized that education is a mission and vocation, not a trade or business, and thus does not fit within the definition of "industry" under Section 2(j).

2. Competency of Applications under Section 33C(2):
Given the conclusion that the University of Delhi's activities do not constitute an industry, the next issue was whether the applications made by the respondents under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act were competent.

Analysis:
Since the court determined that the University of Delhi is not an industry, it followed that the applications made by the respondents under Section 33C(2) were incompetent. The court noted that the Act's provisions do not apply to the disputes between the university and its employees, as the university's primary activity of imparting education does not fall within the scope of the Act.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the University of Delhi and the Miranda College for Women run by it cannot be regarded as carrying on an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the applications made by the respondents under Section 33C(2) were held to be incompetent. The appeals were allowed, the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal were set aside, and the petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed. There was no order as to costs.