1. Dispute over termination and regularization of employees of broadcasting services and whether such services constitute an industry under Section 2(j), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 2 , 3 )
1998 Supreme(SC) 174
1998(1) Supreme 503
Supreme Court of India
S.B. Majmudar & M. Jagannadha Rao, J
All India Radio -Appellant
versus
Shri Santosh Kumar & Anr. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2423 of 1989
With
Civil Appeal No. 2135 of 1993
And
Civil Appeal Nos. 775-776 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7722-7722-A of 1993)
Decided on 5-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. K. Amareswari, Sr. Advocate, A. Subba Rao, Hemant Sharma, S.K. Dwivedi, P. Parmeswaran, C.V. Subba Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondents : R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advocate, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, Ranbir Yadav, M.P. Jha, Ram Ikbal Roy, Advocates.
Important Points
All India Radio and Doordarshan are industries within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act.
Subject
Industrial Disputes - Definition of Industry
Act Referred
Headnote
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether broadcasting services discharge sovereign functions of the State and are therefore excluded from the definition of industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 4 )
3. Broadcasting services engage in commercial activities by charging fees for advertisements and serials, indicating their functions are not purely sovereign in nature. (Para 4 )
4. Activities of an employer are industries under Section 2(j), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, unless they are confined to sovereign functions. (Para 4 )
5. Appeals dismissed; employees to be reinstated in service with all benefits within six weeks. (Para 5 )
6. Whether All India Radio and Doordarshan are considered industries under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Yes. They are industries under Section 2(j) because they carry on commercial activities, such as telecasting advertisements and serials for fees, and their functions are not confined to purely sovereign nature. (Para 4 )
7. What is the test for determining if an entity is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Based on the Bangalore Water Supply case, all activities of employers are covered under the term industry, except for those that are purely sovereign functions of the State. (Para 4 )
8. Does the 1982 amendment to Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, affect the current definition of industry?
No, because the 1982 amendment has not yet been brought into force. Therefore, the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in Bangalore Water Supply continues to hold the field. (Para 4 )
Order
Leave granted in the S.L.Ps.
2. In this group of appeals, the common question which arises for our consideration is to the effect whether the appellant-All India Radio and Doordarshan, as the case may be, are ‘industries’ within the meaning of the said term as defined by Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short).
3. The respondent-employees were either clerks or linemen/watchmen and other casual workers working at the relevant time as employees of either All India Radio or Doordarshan Kendras. In Civil Appeal No. 2423 of 1989 respondent No. 1 was Grade-II Clerk in Chattarpur Station of All India Radio. In Civil Appeal No. 2135 of 1993 respondent-workman was casual Fitter-cum-Watchman working at Doordarshan Kendra T.V. Relay Centre Dwarka, Gujarat, while the contesting respondents in civil appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7722/7722A of 1993 were daily-rated workmen working at Doordarshan Kendra, Ranchi. They had challenged their orders of termination or non-regularisation before the authorities constituted under the Act. Their termination orders were set aside and regularisation was granted, as the case may be, to the concerned respondents with consequential benefits. The writ petitions filed before the High Court by All India Radio or Doordarshan Kendra, as the case may be, were dismissed and that is how they are before us in these appeals.
4. The solitary contention canvassed before us by the learned senior counsel for the appellants is to the effect that All India Radio and Doordarshan Kendra discharge sovereign functions of the State and they are not industries within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. Now, it has to be kept in view that as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court consisting of seven learned Judges in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board etc. v. A. Rajappa & Ors. etc.1 , save and except the sovereign functions, all other activities of employers would be covered within the sweep of term ‘industry’ as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act. The functions which are carried on by All India Radio and Doordarshan cannot be said to be confined to sovereign functions as they carry on commercial activity for profit by getting commercial advertisements telecast or broadcast through their various kendras and stations by charging fees. Looking to the functions of Doordarshan and its set up, as seen from Annexure-1 (annexed to S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7722-7722A of 1993), being the extracts from Doordarshan Manual Vol. I, it cannot be said that the functions carried on by them are of purely sovereign nature. Day in and day out advertisements are being telecast and even serials are being telecast on payment of appropriate charges and on which there cannot be any dispute. Same is the position with All India Radio. However, learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees Association, Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange v. Union of India & Anr.2. It is true that in that case a Bench of two learned Judges took the view that the telephone exchanges run by the Central Government were discharging sovereign functions and, therefore, the employees working in the canteen run by such telephone exchanges cannot be said to be working in ‘industry’ as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act. However, the said decision has been expressly over-ruled by a judgment of a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom v. A. Srinivasa Rao & Ors.3. In that case, Chief Justice Verma speaking for the three Judge Bench in paragraph 7 of the Report has expressly over-ruled the said decision. In that decision other decision in Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam Joseph & Ors.4, is also over-ruled. It has been held in the said decision that the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in Bangalore Water Supply (supra) holds the field and the amendment to the definition of