Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)

1. A reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the Undertaking, wherein the appellant was employed, was not an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. The order of the Labour Court has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge in a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The workman is before this Court in appeal.

2. The respondent-employer had a proprietary concern by the name of "Royal Auto Centre". The business of the firm consisted of purchasing automobile spare parts in Mumbai and supplying them to parties outside the State of Maharashtra. The workman was engaged in April, 1987 for carrying out the work of packing of spare parts and his services were dispensed with on 12th March, 1991. From the evidence on record, it emerges that besides the workman, the employer engaged one other person who was described as a Trainee. The business of the respondent was carried out from the premises of a shop.

3. The Labour Court applied the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors., reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 and came to the conclusion that the establishment of the respondent was not an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j). The Labour Court held that the establishment had only two employees, one of whom is a trainee and there was no organised labour force for distribution of goods or rendering any services in the establishment of the employer. The work of packing, the Labour Court held, could well be done by the employer himself and there was no organised activity or co-operation between employer and employee. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21st August, 1997 affirmed the view of the Labour Court and held that it cannot be said that any organised labour was engaged in the establishment of the employer nor could it be said that there was a plurality of workmen engaged in the establishment of the employer. A small "up marketing business activity" carried on by the employer could not be termed as a systematic activity organised by co-operation between employer and employee for distribution of goods or services.

4. On behalf of the workman, an attempt has been made to demonstrate from the evidence that besides the respondent-employer, the same premises were being used for carrying on business by the son of the proprietory. Hence, it was submitted that in the present case, a commercial activity was being carried on in the premises. Reliance was sought to be placed on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Om Prakash Jhumman Lal v. Labour Court, is Hazari, Delhi, & Anr., reported in 1970 I LLJ 143. Finally, it was submitted that the establishment of the respondent would not fall within the exception carved out by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 111 and 161 of the judgment in supra) Bangalore Water Supply’s case (supra).

5. Before the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply’s case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Firm Tulsiram Sadanand Sarda v. Assistant Collector of Labour, Nagpur, reported in 1960 Vol.43 BLR 342, had occasion to consider a case where a workman was engaged in a shop belonging to the employer. The shop was situated in the residential premises in which a partnership firm was carrying on the business of purchase and sale of bales of cotton and yarn. The Court had to construe the expression "industry" as defined under Section 2(14) of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. The Division Bench held that in order to constitute an "industry", the establishment should be engaged in an activity which is predominantly carried on by employment of organised labour force for the production or distribution of goods or for rendering of material services to the community at large or a part of such community. An activity pertaining to or in relation