The definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, includes any business, trade undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Phukan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed by the Cattle Development Officer (I.C.D.P). Sambalpur, against the ex parte award dated November 13, 1993 made by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur,

2. Briefly stated, the workman-opposite party No. 1, after undergoing training as Village Cattle Inseminator at the cost of the Government, was appointed in March, 1983 by the District Veterinary Officer, Sambalpur. According to the writ petitioner, after introduction of Liquid Nitrogen Semen, the services of opp. party No. 1 were terminated in May, 1988. There was a conciliation proceeding. Thereafter the State Government by order dated September 19, 1992 referred the following dispute for adjudication of the Labour Court, Sambalpur :

"Whether the termination of services of Taranisen Dash w.e.f. May 27, 1988 by the Cattle Development Officer (Intensive Cattle Development Project), Sambalpur, is legal and/ or justified? If not, what relief Sri Taranisen Dash is entitled to ?"

By the impugned award, the Labour Court has held that there was violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (shortly called 'the Act') and accordingly directed reinstatement of opp. party No. 1 in service with full back wages after setting aside the termination order.

3. We have perused the exparte award and we find that on the basis of the statement of the workman, the award was made.

4. Before this Court, the main point urged is that the Intensive Cattle Development Project under Veterinary Department is not an industry and in this connection reference was made to a decision of this Court in Habibulla v. State of Orissa : OJC No. 3232 of 1990, disposed of on February 7, 1991. Wherein it was held that Veterinary Department of the Government is not an 'industry'. The word 'industry' has been defined in Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act. Though this clause has been amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1992 the amendments have not been brought into force. Therefore, for the present purpose, the definition of 'industry', as existed prior to the amendment, will apply and it runs as follows :

"(j) 'industry' means, any business, trade undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;"

Whether the branch of the Veterinary Department namely, the Intensive Cattle Development Project, is an industry or not would require evidence as this point has not been gone into by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.

In this connection, we may refer to the landmark decision of the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others. The Apex Court, inter alia, laid down the criteria for determining an activity as 'industry', after referring to the decision in D.N. Banerji Vs. P.R. Mukherjee and Others as follows :

"(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 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.

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

There are subsequent decisions of the Apex Court on this point which the Labour Court shall also take into consideration while deciding this matter.

5. From the award in question, we find that the Labour Court did not at all c