1. Rule.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These Petitions challenge awards passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai in favour of the first Respondents in both petitions, in a reference made to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The controversy in the petitions is in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a cooperative housing society, who had engaged both first Respondents as sweepers. Their services were terminated later. Being aggrieved, they raised an industrial dispute and upon failure of conciliation, the same was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court for adjudication. It was contended by the petitioner society that the petitioner society was not an 'industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, however, rejected the petitioner's contention and held that it was an industry; primarily because the court was of the view that it was duly proved before it that the petitioner society had let out a part of its terrace for installation of telephone transmission tower and was earning income from the licensee. The court held that since the petitioner had indulged in a commercial activity of letting out its premises to outsiders for whom services had to be rendered by the Respondents such as parking of vehicles and other services, this activity made the petitioner an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act.

3. What amounts to an industry is succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and ors., 1978(ii) SCC Page 213 The observations of the court on the subject are quoted below:

“140. 'Industry', as defined in Section 2(j) and explained in Banerji (supra), has a wide import.

(a) Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial element is chimerical) (iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss e.g. making, on a large scale prasad or food), prima facie, there is an 'industry' in that enterprise.

(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private and other sector.

(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer employee relations.

(d) If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the undertaking.”

4. The expression “Undertaking” appearing in the definition of “Industry” under Section 2(j) was also explained by the Supreme Court in the following words:

“(a) 'Undertaking' must suffer a contextual and associational shrinkage as explained in Banerji (supra) and in this judgment; so also, service, calling and the like. This yields the inference that all organized activity possessing the triple elements in I (supra), although not trade or business, may still be 'industry' provided the nature of the activity, viz. the employer employee basis, bears resemblance to what we find in trade or business. This takes into the fold of 'industry' undertakings, callings and services, adventures 'analogous to the carrying on the trade or business'. All features, other than the methodology of carrying on the activity viz. in organizing the cooperation between employer and employee, may be dissimilar. It does not matter, if on the employment terms there is analogy.”

5. To decide whether, going by its activities, the undertaking would be an industry or not in case where there are complex activities carried out by it, the Supreme Court in Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board case laid down the dominant nature test in the following words:

“43. The dominant nature test:

(a) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, others not, involves employees o