SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(SC) 81

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st March, 1963
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
1. Harinagar Cane Farm (In C. A No. 349 of 1962) 2. Messrs. Motipur Zamindary Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., (In C. A. 31 of 1961), Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar and others etc. (In both appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 349 of 1962 and 31 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
In C. A. No. 349 of 1962 : M/s. Ganpat Rai and Lalit Kumar, Advocates, for Appellant; In C. A. No. 31 of 1961 : Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him) for Appellant ; In C. A. No. 349 of 1962: Mr. D. Goburdhun, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 In C. A. No. 349 of 1962 : M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi, S. C. Agarwala, D. P. Singh and R. K. Garg Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co. for Respondent No. 3; In C. A. No.31 of 1961 : Mr. S. P. Varma Advocate for Respondent No. 1; In C. A. No. 31 of 1961 : Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Advocate, for Respondent No. 3

Advocates:
D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, D.P.Singh, GANPAT RAI, LALIT GUPTA, M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, NAUNIT LAL, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.P.Varma

Agricultural operations carried on by limited companies formed for the purpose of carrying on agricultural trade or business constitute an industry under S. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 2(j) - Agricultural operations carried on by limited companies formed for the purpose of carrying on agricultural trade or business - Whether constitute an industry - Held, yes.

Fact of the Case:

Two limited companies, Motipur Zamindari Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and Harinagar Cane Farm, engaged in agricultural operations, challenged the orders of the Patna High Court holding that their operations constituted an industry under S. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the agricultural operations carried on by the two appellants constituted an industry under S. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issues: Whether agricultural operations carried on by limited companies formed for the purpose of carrying on agricultural trade or business constitute an industry under S. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the agricultural operations carried on by the appellants were organized by them and carried on as a trade or business would be carried on by any trader or businessman. The Court also noted that the appellants were limited companies formed for the express purpose of carrying on agricultural trade or business, and that the agricultural operations were within their objects.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the orders of the Patna High Court were upheld.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: The short question which arise in these appeals is whether the agricultural operations carried on by the two appellants respectively constitute an industry within the meaning of S. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act ). An industrials dispute raised by the workmen of the two respective appellants had been referred for adjudication by respondent No. 1 the State of Bihar, to an Industrial Tribunal under S. 10(1) of the Act. Both the appellants then moved the Patna High Court for an appropriate writ under Art 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the agricultural operations carried on by them did not constitute an industry under the Act and so, respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to make the impugned orders of reference under S. 10 of the Act. The High Court has repelled this contention and has held that the agricultural operations carried on by the appellants respectively constitute an industry, and so, the two impugned orders of reference are perfectly valid under S. 10. It is against these orders passed by the Patna High Court in the two petitions filed by the respective appellants that they have come to this Court by special leave; and the short question which falls for our decision is in regard to the applicability of S. 2(j) of the act to the appellants operations in question.

2. M/s Motipur Zamindari Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. which is the appellant in C. A. No. 31 of 1961 is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It mainly produces sugar cane for sale to Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd., Motipur, Muzafarpur, in pursuance of an agreement under the provisions of the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937, and the rules framed thereunder. It also produced wheat paddy and other articles for sale in the market either to the consumers or to wholesale dealers. Besides, it undertakes contract work of the Motipur Sugar Factory, such as maintaining tram-lines, maintaining weigh bridge at Paharchak, operating lake pumps, loading and unloading of canes and letting buildings on hire.

3. M/s Harinagar Cane Farm which is the appellant in C. A. No. 349 of 1962 had been purchased by the Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., in March, 1956 and since then is functioning as a department of the said Mills. It is a subsidiary concern of the Mills and a part of the organization of the Mills itself. Thus, the Mills through this section produces sugar for its own purpose. It is in the background of this character of the respective appellants that the question raised by the present appeals has to be determined.

4. Mr. Setalvad for the appellants contends that in determining the question as to whether S. 2(j) of the Act includes agricultural operations, it would be necessary to bear in mind certain general considerations. He concedes that the words used in S. 2(j), if they are liberally construed in their fullest amplitude, may perhaps be wide enough to include agriculture and agricultural operations; but he emphasises the fact that the legislative history for more than 50 years in this country shows that a sharp distinction is drawn between industry on the one hand and agriculture on the other. In this connection, he relies on the provisions of Art 43 of the Constitution which refers to workers classified as agricultural industrial or otherwise when it provides that the State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers a living wage and other amenities specified in the said Article. The argument is when refering to workers, the Constitution has recognised a difference between agricultural workers on the one hand and industrial workers on the other. It is also pointed out that the same distinction is made in the relevant entries in the different Lists of the Seventh Schedule. Entries 14 and 18 in the State List, for instance, refer respectively to agriculture, including agricultural educa












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top