S.Sarwar Ali, J.

1. In ten of the writ applications the petitioners are temporary employees of several departments of the Government. Only the petitioners in two writ applications are employees of Sone Command Area Development Agency and Bihar Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation. The departments of the Government with which we are concerned are the Forest Department, Agricultural Department, Health Department and Origination Department. Temporary appointment of the petitioners in the various writ applications have been terminated under orders which are challenged in these writ applications.

2. Two main controversies arise in these writ applications. They are:

(a) Whether the Departments, Agency or the Corporation concerned are industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act), and as such the petitioners are entitled to the protection of Sec.25F of the Act.

(b) Whether the petitioners in all these cases were entitled to be heard before the impugned orders of termination of their services were passed. In other words, whether the concerned respondents, who admittedly were acting administratively, had acted unfairly in passing the impugned orders without giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard or having their say in the matter of the proposed action.

3. Before dealing with the facts of the individual cases it would be proper to consider the main contentions as noticed above, and then to consider whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief on the basis of the legal position as explained. Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act:

4. After a series of controversies raised in a number of cases going up to the Supreme Court, the law is now authoritatively laid down by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board V/s. Rajappa and Ors. -- . This decision in the words of Iyer, J. formulates" the principles deducible from our discussion, which are decisive, positively and negatively, of the identity of industry under the Act." The decision clarifies that what was laid down was not exhaustive but confined to the extent covered by the debate at the bar. I can do no better than to quote the relevant portions of Paragraph 161 which formulate the principles:

(a) Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organised by co-operation 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 1, -- .

religious but Inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss i. e. 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 or 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.

II. Although Sec.2(j) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs, their meaning cannot be magnified to over reach itself. (a) Undertaking must suffer a contextual and associational shrinkage as explained in Banerji and in this judgment; so also, service, calling and the like. This yields the inference that all organised 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 industry undertakings, ceilings and services, adventures analogous to the carrying on of trade or business. All features, other than the methodology of carrying on the activity viz. in organizing the co-operation between employer and employee, may be dissimilar. It does not matter, if on the employment terms there is analogy.

* * * *

IV. The dominant nature test: (a) Where a complex of activities,