The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'industry' under Sec.2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, focusing on the nature of employer-employee relations, the commercial orientation of the organization, and the presence of economic relationships to determine its classification as an 'industry'. The judgment also highlighted the importance of the charitable objectives of the institution in deciding its industrial status.

The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the same party namely The Youngmens Christian Association at Tiruchirapalli. They came forward to challenge the two awards passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.Nos.397/95 and 400/95 in these two writ petitions respectively.

2. Pending the writ petitions, this Court granted interim relief including the deposit of certain amounts to the credit of the IDs before the Labour Court.

3. In respect of the contesting respondent A.Soosai (ID 397/95), he was engaged as a driver for the ambulance run by the petitioner association, and in respect of Sundar (ID No.400/95), he was engaged as an attender in the hostel run by them. When they were terminated from service, they raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer, and subsequently the matter was taken to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, there were six such workmen, and all the six IDs were tried together. But, it is now stated that in respect of the other four workmen they have settled their claims, and what now remains is the Award relating to I.D.Nos.397/95 and 400/95.

4. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workmen, 33 documents were filed, and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W33. On the side of the petitioner management, 10 documents were filed, and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M10. The contesting respondent Soosai examined himself as WW6, and the other contesting respondent Sundar examined himself as WW4. On the side of the petitioner management, Mr.L.Janaraj who was the President of the Association, was examined as MW1.

5. The only contention raised by the management before the Labour Court was that the petitioner organisation will not come within the meaning of industry in terms of Sec.2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and it is a charitable and philanthropic organisation. Before the Labour Court, the President of the petitioner association who deposed as MW1, was cross-examined. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that the shops let out by them, were used for commercial purposes, and in the hostel run by them, there are 55 occupants with 28 rooms, and the Inspector of Labour has prosecuted them for not maintaining the records as per the labour enactment, and they are also getting rents for the rooms let out, and even for the ambulance, rent was collected for its usage.

6. Therefore, the Labour Court by placing reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court held that it is an "industry" within the meaning of Sec.2(j) of the I.D. Act and that the workmen are entitled to maintain the dispute. Thereafter, on going through the facts of the dispute the Labour Court held that the termination of service of these two contesting respondents did not arise. Even on the plea of financial restraint, the management had failed to produce documents to substantiate the same, and in view of that fact, the services of these workmen were not required. The Labour Court also found that the workmen had worked for more than 12 years, and no disciplinary action was taken against them before they were sent out. In that view of the matter, it had passed the impugned common award directing the reinstatement of the workmen with back wages and continuity of service.

7. Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that it is an industry within the meaning of Sec.2(j) of the Act is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A.Rajappa and Others reported in AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 548. The Counsel placed reliance upon paragraph 132 of that judgment to reiterate the point that when the goal of the institution is charitable or philanthropic, the fact that some scavengers served or employed will not make it an industry, and that this aspect was not considered by the Labour Court. The passage relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is extracted hereunder:-

"132.The heart of trade or b