What is an Industry - written by the Monty Python.

Victor Hugo said before you speak, define your terms. Law follows this. In the beginning of all legislation words are defined which are used throughout the statute.

In the field of law, one must be clear that what exactly is the subject of legislation. However, it is often the simplest words that defy a proper definition. So far as law is concerned these inaccurate definitions create uncertainty and mayhem.

Consider the word "industry". How shall you define it? Normally one would consult the dictionary. But the law needs certainty and reason. Courts are not run on common sense and general knowledge alone.

In 1947, the parliament came up with the Industrial Disputes Act. To deal with, well industrial disputes, the essence of which was how do you define "industry"? Will you include a hospital, or a municipality, or a department of government which manufactures something, a gymkhana probably? Where do you draw the line?

Parliament made up a definition which was not exactly accurate. Field was wide open for Judicial interpretation, and boy oh boy did they interpret!

In one of the first classic judgments, B. N. Banerji v. R. P. Mukherjee & Others. (1954) S.C.R. 302, the Supreme Court ruled that a municipality was an industry within the scope of the Act. Their logic was that profit making and capital investment are not essential for an industry. The definition in 2(j) of the 1947 act was widely interpreted and the following cases followed the same logic.

However, in University of Delhi & Anr. v. Ramnath & Ors. AIR [1963] S.C. 1873 and in Madras Gymkhana Club v. Employees' Union v. Management AIR 1968 S.C. 554, the Supreme Court drew a line and did not accept that a university or a private Gymkhana would be an "industry". So far so good.

In State of Bombay and Other v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others [1960] 2 SCR 866, the court ruled that a government hospital would be also and "industry" for purposes of the Act. Any activity systematically and habitually under-taken for the production or distribution of goods or for the

rendering of material services to the community or a part of it with the help of employees organized or arranged in the manner of a trade or business would be an industry notwithstanding its commercial or non-commercial nature.

This held the field for ten years till in five learned judges in MANAGEMENT OF SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL, NEW DELHI v. KULDIP SINGH SETHI [1971] 1 S.C.R. 177 overruled its earlier decision. In this case the Court held that Government hospitals were not "industry". "Industry" does not exist either by employers alone or by employees alone. It exists only when there is a relationship between employers and employees, the former engaged in business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and the latter engaged in any calling, service, employment handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation. But every case of employment is not necessarily productive of an industry. It was said the decision in Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, holding that a government hospital was an industry look an extreme view of the matter and cannot be justified.

This judgement however did not have a long life, a 7-judge bench in BANGALORE WATER-SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, ETC. v. R. RAJAPPA & OTHERS, [1978] 3 S.C.R. 207, the 1971 judgment was overturned and Hospital Majdoor Sabha affirmed. This case however was a pig’s breakfast. For a first, there is no majority opinion. There are 4 judgments. Krishna Iyer for 3 judges, Jaswant Singh for 2 judges and Chandrachud and Beg, C.J. for themselves alone. Beg agrees with Krishna Iyer making the Krishna Iyer judgment the ratio of the case. There exists a slight problem however. The Krishna Iyar judgment overrules Safdarjung Hospital but Beg in his concurring opinion doesn’t. The conundrum remains whether the Safdarjung case was overruled or not.

There exists yet another monty-pythonesque problem, since the judgment was being delivered on Beg, C.J.’s last working day which was a day before the day he was to retire, he did not have enough time to go into a discussion of the various judgments cited, particularly on the nature of sovereign functions of the State and whether the activities in discharge of those functions would be covered in the definition of “industry”. Beg, C.J. was to retire on 22-2-1978, the Bench delivered the judgment on 21- 2-1978 with its conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed. The above conclusion was unanimous but the three Hon’ble Judges namely Chandrachud, J. on behalf of himself and Jaswant Singh, J. speaking for himself and Tulzapurkar, J., on the day the judgment was delivered i.e. as on 21-2-1978, had not prepared their separate opinions. They only declared that they would deliver their separate opinions later. On the retirement of Beg, C.J., Chandrachud, J. took over as the Chief Justice and he delivered his separate opinion on 7-4-1978 which was obviously neither seen by Beg, C.J. nor dealt with by the other three Judges: Krishna Iyer, Bhagwati and Desai, JJ. As can be seen from the contents of the separate opinion subsequently delivered by Chandrachud, C.J. (as he then was), he did not fully agree with the opinion of Krishna Iyer, J. that the definition of “industry” although of wide amplitude can be restricted. A separate opinion was delivered much later by Jaswant Singh, J. for himself and Tulzapurkar, J., after they had gone through the separate opinion given by Chandrachud, C.J. (as he then was). The opinion of Jaswant Singh for himself and Tulzapurkar, J. is clearly a dissenting opinion. The Judges delivered different opinions in the case of Bangalore Water Supply at different points of time and in some cases without going through or having an opportunity of going through the opinions of other Judges.

This judgment sans its undefined ratio holds the fort till date. A 5-judge bench was formed to clear the muddy waters in State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1, to define its ratio but the bench doubted the entirety of the reasoning of Bangalore Water Supply and recommended placing it before a larger bench i.e. 9 judges bench, since only a larger bench can overrule the judgment of a smaller bench. That was in 2005. We are in the year of Grace 2025.

Since then nothing.

You may ask what was the legislature doing? As a coordinate branch of the State with the function to make laws, shouldn’t the Parliament ought to step in and define what it meant by “industry”?

Well folks the Parliament did that, in 1982. Yes in 1982.

But Parliament can make laws. To put those laws into effect you would go to the Executive. The Government publishes a notification in its gazette and that is the day on which the law becomes effective. If the Government doesn’t notify the laws of Parliament, they remain empty words.

Why the Government of India has chosen not to publish the notification remains a mystery. Really there is no reason behind it. Or maybe there is some deep state operating. (a joke pls)

A huge conundrum remains as to what is an “Industry”, all that is needed is for a secretary in the law ministry to publish this notification and put the law into effect, ending the uncertainty of atleast sixty a decade.

When will that happen? Who knows.