ORDER

The questions that fall for consideration before this Court are, (i) Whether the Municipal Corporation is “an industry” as defined under Section 2(j)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(ID Act” for short)?

(ii) Whether the industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction over the dispute regarding regularization of the temporary workers employed by the Municipal Corporation for functioning of the swimming pool?

2. Petitioner is referred to as “the Corporation”

and respondent No.1 as “Union” for the sake of convenience.

3. Industrial dispute raised by the Union for the workmen was referred by the appropriate Government, the claim and contention of the Union was that, the workers though worked for a long period of time, their services have not been regularized.

4. The Corporation filed statement of objections, inter alia, contending that the industrial dispute was not maintainable as the Corporation was not an industry and the running of swimming pool was not essential services carried out by the Corporation.

5. The Industrial Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short), by the impugned award, held that:

(i) The Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the reference as the Corporation was an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the ID Act.

(ii) The claim of the Union for its workers seeking regularization of service was justified and by the impugned award, directed the Corporation to regularize the services of the workmen.

6. Heard Sri K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Devaraj C.H., learned Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and Sri M. Rajashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

7. Municipal Corporation claims that they are not an industry and therefore, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the matter of regularizing temporary workers. They argue that, their primary function is governance and public service, not industrial production or commercial enterprise. Therefore, the decision to regularize temporary workers would not fall under the purview of industrial dispute resolution mechanism.

8. The respondent – Union argued that, despite being appointed on temporary basis, they have been performing essential functions for appropriate functioning of the swimming pool, which is a facility managed by the Municipal Corporation. They contend that, their employment situation falls within the definition of the industrial dispute as per relevant labour laws and regulations. They seek regularization of their employment based on their contribution to the functioning of the swimming pool.

9. The word “industry” is defined under Section

2(j) of the ID Act, which states that, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,“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. The term “industry” as a broad interpretation under labour laws, encompassing not just manufacturing, but also services an activity undertaken for the public good. The scope of the word “industry” has become wider and enlarged. The earliest case decided by the Apex Court, on the construction of the definition in the case of D.N.Banerji vs. P.R.Mukerjee & others1, held that, though municipal activity could not be truly regarded as a “business or a trade”, it would fall within the scope of the expression “undertaking”, hence, the non-profit undertakings of the municipality were included in the concept of an

AIR 1953 SC 58

industry even if there was no private enterprise. It held that, it is sufficient that an activity is an “undertaking” analogous to the carrying on a trade or business and involves co-operation between the employer and employee.

10. The Apex Court, again in The Corporation City of Nagpur vs. Employees2 held that, the activities of a Municipal Corporation would be an industry within the meaning of the Act. The seven Judges Bench in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A.Rajappa