Whether the Telecommunication Department of the Indian Government can be construed as an “industry” under the definition of industry as in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act?
An establishment is considered an industry if it is engaged in a commercial activity, unless it is discharging sovereign functions of the State.
Whether the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) is considered an "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act), and whether it is subject to the provisions of the Act, including the recognition of employees as "workmen"?
An activity qualifies as "industry" if it involves collaboration between an employer and employees with the goal of producing or distributing goods or services that satisfy the needs of consumers.
Sovereign functions (such as legislative, judicial, or law enforcement activities) are exempt from being classified as "industry."
The "dominant nature test" is applied when an organization carries out a mix of activities, some of which may be exempt, but the overall nature of the activities determines whether it qualifies as an industry.
Whether the term "industry" in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 includes operations relating to the State's "social forestry" department, which primarily focuses on environmental welfare?
Whether the conflicting interpretations between Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar be revisited in light of the binding precedent set by Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa?
An "industry" involves organized cooperation between employers and employees for producing goods or services aimed at satisfying human wants or needs, excluding sovereign functions like law enforcement, justice dispensation, or legislation.
The dominant nature test applies when entities perform both industrial and sovereign functions, focusing on the primary nature of their activities.