1960 (1) TMI 32 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the termination orders under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the group of Hospitals run by the appellant.
3. Interpretation of the term "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Termination Orders under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The respondents, who were employed as Ward servants, contested their termination on the grounds that it did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 25F(b) stipulates that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year shall be retrenched until he has been paid compensation at the time of retrenchment. The Court of Appeal upheld the respondents' plea, stating that non-compliance with Section 25F(b) rendered the termination orders invalid and inoperative. The court emphasized that the requirement prescribed by Section 25F(b) is a condition precedent for retrenchment and non-compliance with this mandatory provision invalidates the retrenchment orders.

2. Applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Group of Hospitals:
The appellant argued that the J.J. group of Hospitals did not constitute an industry and therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were inapplicable. The Court of Appeal, however, found that the group of Hospitals run by the appellant indeed fell within the definition of "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Act. The court noted that the hospitals were systematically organized, involved cooperation between employer and employees, and aimed at providing material services to the community. The court held that the character of the activity, rather than the entity conducting it, determined its classification as an industry.

3. Interpretation of the Term "Industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The Supreme Court examined the definition of "industry" as provided in Section 2(j) of the Act, which includes any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and extends to any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. The court emphasized that the words used in the definition are of wide import and should be interpreted broadly. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the rule of construction "noscuntur a sociis" should be applied to restrict the meaning of "industry." The court observed that the inclusive definition in Section 2(j) was deliberately broad to cover a wide range of activities, including those undertaken by the government. The court concluded that the group of Hospitals run by the appellant constituted an "undertaking" under Section 2(j) and thus fell within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, confirming that the termination orders were invalid due to non-compliance with Section 25F(b) and that the group of Hospitals run by the appellant constituted an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appeal was dismissed with costs.