Category: Industrial Disputes

ISSUE:

Whether the notification dated 9th December 1976 issued by the Central Government is valid and applies to all Central Government Companies?

Whether contract labourers automatically become regular employees upon the issuance of a valid notification under the CLRA Act?

RULE:

The appropriate Government is determined based on the nature of the establishment and whether it is under the control of the Central Government or State Government.

A contract that is found to be a sham or camouflage to hide the real employment relationship may allow the workers to claim employment with the principal employer, triggering an industrial dispute.

A notification may abolish or prohibit contract labour employment in an establishment based on specific factors such as the nature of work, whether it is of perennial nature, and whether regular workmen are employed for similar tasks but it does not automatically convert contract labourers into regular employees.

ISSUE:

Whether a dispute regarding the employment or non-employment of a person who is not classified as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Act?

Whether a dispute qualifies as an industrial dispute under the Act based on direct or substantial interest of the party raising the issue, and what separates a collective dispute from an individual argument in the context of industrial disputes?

RULE:

For a dispute to qualify as an industrial dispute under Section 2(k), the workmen involved must have a direct or substantial interest in the employment or conditions of labor of the individual concerned.

This criterion excludes individuals in positions like managerial or medical staff, whose employment status generally does not affect the workmen’s direct employment interests or conditions of labor.

ISSUE:

Whether the dismissal of a collective group of workers by the employer constitutes an industrial dispute within the purview of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act

Whether the union, despite representing only a minority of employees within the establishment, possesses sufficient representative authority to validly raise the dispute on behalf of the dismissed workers

RULE:

A dispute qualifies as an industrial dispute if it involves employment conditions affecting a group of workers and may be raised by any union or group that sufficiently represents them, regardless of majority status within the establishment.

ISSUE:

Whether the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Committee (APMC) created under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, qualifies as an “industry” as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA).

Whether the Karnataka Act, having acquired the President's assent, supersedes the IDA relevant to the employees controlled by the State Act.

RULE:

A statutory body like the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) can be classified as an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if its functions are not sovereign in nature.

Regulatory functions that serve the public interest and involve systematic, organized activities (such as market regulation), even if non-profit, do not qualify as sovereign functions and thus fall within the scope of the IDA.

ISSUE:

Whether the Appellants are “industries” as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947(“the Act”)?

Whether the Appellants discharge sovereign functions?

RULE:

All activities of an employer, except those strictly related to sovereign functions, are considered to fall within the definition of "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

If an organization, even if run by the government, engages in commercial activities or generates revenue through services like advertisements, it is classified as an industry under the Act.

ISSUE:

Whether a statutory body engaged in activities essential for the provision of basic amenities to citizens can be classified as an “industry” under the definition in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947?

RULE:

Dominant nature test, which applies when an entity performs both industrial and non-industrial functions. The dominant or predominant nature of the entity's activities determines whether the organization qualifies as an industry. Only strictly sovereign functions, such as defense and law enforcement, are excluded from the definition of "industry."

Triple test to determine whether an entity qualifies as an industry:

Systematic Activity: The entity must engage in an organized and systematic activity.

Employer-Employee Cooperation: The activity should involve the cooperation of employers and employees.

Production of Goods or Services for Human Needs: The activity must produce goods or services intended for human consumption or use, whether or not for profit.

ISSUE:

Whether the Appellant can be classified as an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947?

RULE:

An 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 refers to any systematic activity involving cooperation between employers and employees for the production of goods or services, regardless of whether the activity is profit-oriented.

The presence of an employer-employee relationship and organized functioning are the key determinants of an 'industry' under the Act.