Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs R. Rajappa & Ors.

Petitioner: Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board

Defendant: R. Rajappa & Ors.

21 February 1978

1978 AIR 548, 1978 SCR (3) 207

Statutes Referred:

The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

Regulation of Employment Act, 1948

Plantations Labour Act, 1951

Cases Referred:

State of W.B v. Union of India SCR 397

Union of India v. H.S Dhillon SCC 789 15 AIR

Facts of the Cases:

1. The petitioner has filed the suit against the defendant as they have fined various sums of amount which was recovered from them with the help of misconduct. The case was also filed under the section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, stating that the punishment was imposed by violating the principles of natural justice.
2. The defendant has also raised an inquiry challenging the labour court and their statutory board that providing the basic amenities to the citizens was their essential regal function that must be performed by them. And with that section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, does not claim to decide the jurisdiction of the workmen in the industry.
3. But the challenge were over-ruled in the court of law, the writ petitions in the Karnataka High Court was also over-ruled as the bench in the court dismissed all the pleas under section 2(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Considering the declarations made by the court, the Industrial Dispute Act should be comprehensive, clear and conclusive so that a common man can able to understand and apply the law in their desirability.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the Bangalore Water Supply will fall under the section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act?
2. Whether the charitable institutions of the cooperative society be considered as Industries?
3. Whether university, colleges, clubs or many other organizations will fall under the Act or not?
4. The basic meaning of ‘Industry’ should be explained that what specifically what should fall under the Act and what should not?

Parties Contention

Petitioner

1. The petitioner has raises the matter that under the term Industry, which sectors will fall or which are not. As the petitioner has laid down the point or stated the meaning of Industry that every organization who work for profit creation should be considered under the term Industry and shall follow the rules and regulations that every normal industry follow or on which the system governs.
2. With that plantation act was also arised that according to the act, the agriculture sector should also fall under the term Industry as in country like India where agriculture comprises of more than 70% of the economy, the agriculture sector play a major role in the overall national GDP and growth.

Defendant

1. The defendant has nullified all the accusations as the act does not specifies in any of the section of the act that specifically what should be the sectors that should fall under the term Industry.
2. As according to the Section 33C of the Act, the workmen is entitled for money or nay kind of other benefit that a normal employee has right over it. Due to which, the rules were presiding the labour laws and expedient to the norms.

Judgement

1. The court has taken the appropriate decision by stating the proper definition of the term “Industry” under the section 2(j) of the act so that their should be clear knowledge about the matter that what are those sectors that might fall under the specific category.
2. The organisation whether profit oriented or not, it must be concluded under the act. With all that the true focus was totally functional and decisive in nature which directly emphasizes the better relation of employee with the co-employees.
3. And most importantly the undertaking should be contextual and associational to posses the resemblance of the firmness in the organisation.
4. The ideology of the Act should be maintained with logical reach by invoking the creeds, cults and the inner sense of incongruity to resultant the economic operations.

Rule of Law

The basic rule of law was applied here that the Industries should fall under the act to simplify the scenario for the layman to get easy access to the law.

Comment

According to my personal opinion, the industries must fall under the act so that they can easily govern under the rules and regulations.

Conclusion

To conclude the above case, the court has taken the appropriate decision that whether the industry is profit oriented or not that firm should fall under the act to maintain the soverignity of the system.