Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I.  : This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 1705 of 1969, 1781 of 1969 and 1777 of 1969. The first is an appeal by the Management of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The second by the Management of tuberculosis Hospital. New Delhi and the third by the Kurji Holy Family Hospital, Patna. The first two are filed by special leave and the third by certificate. They call in question respectively the order of the Central Government Labour Court, Delhi dated 21st February, 1969 on an application under Sec. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the order of the Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi dated 24th February, 1969 and the judgment and order dated 21st February, 1969 of the Patna High Court. They raise a common question of law whether these several hospitals can be regarded as industries within the meaning of the term in the Industrial Disputes Act. They also raise different questions on merits which will be considered separately. The facts of the three cases may be noticed briefly before we begin to examine the common question of law mentioned above.

C. A. No. 1705 of 1969.

2. The Management of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi was the respondent in a petition under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 in a petition by the present respondent Kuldip Singh Sethi, a Lower Division Clerk in the Hospital, for computation of the amount of salary etc. due to him in the pay scale of store-keepers. Kuldip Singh Sethi was appointed as a Store-keeper on October 26, 1956 in the pay scale of Rs. 60-5-75. This scale was revised to Rs. 110-180 on July 1, 1959 in accordance with the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission. Two or three months later the pay was re-fixed and the time scale was Rs. 110-131 with usual allowances. On July 1, 1962 his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 131. On November 26, 1962 the Government of India in the Ministry of Health re-revised the pay scales of Store-keepers to 130-5-160-8-200-EB-8-280-10-300 with the usual allowances. The order was to take effect from the date of issue. Kuldip Singh Sethi complained by his petition that the Management of the Hospital had failed to give him pay in this scale and claimed Rs. 914 for the period November 26, 1962 to May 31, 1968.

3. In reply to his petition the Management contended that Kuldip Singh Sethi was not a workman but a Government servant governed by the Conditions of Service for Government Servants and hence he could not invoke the Industrial Disputes Act since the Safdarjung Hospital was not an industry. The Tribunal, following the decision of this Court in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, (1960) 2 SCR 866 has held that the Hospital is an industry , that Kuldip Singh Sehti is a workman and hence he is entitled to take recourse to Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On merits his claim is found sustainable and he is given an award for Rs. 914. We need not mention at this stage the grounds on which the merits of his claim are resisted. The point of law that arises in the case is whether the Safdarjung Hospital can be properly described as an industry as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act.

C. A. No. 1781 of 1969.

4. In the case there is a dispute between the Management of the Tuberculosis Hospital, New Delhi, and its workmen represented by the Aspatal Karmachari Panchayat regarding pay scales, and other facilities demanded by the workmen. The Management has taken the preliminary objection that the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply since the Hospital is not an industry and is not run as such. The Management, therefore, questions the reference to the Tribunal under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A preliminary issue is raised: Is T. B. Hospital an industry or not? In support of the case that the Hospital is not an industry, the Management emphasises the functions of the Hospital. It is pointed out that the Hospital is run by the Tuberculosis A