Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W. P. No. 3 of 1960.

Advocates

Messrs. K. Rajah Aiyar, Kesavalal Tarwady and K. Hariharan for Petr.
Mr. N. C. Raghuvachari for Mr. N. S. Varadachari for Respondent-2.

Judges

Ramachandra Iyer, J.

Acts

S. 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Madras Pinjarapole (Art. 226 / Industrial Disputes)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of prohibition (or other appropriate writ) to prevent the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras, from proceeding with the enquiry in I.D. No. 103 of 1958. By Government Order No. 3621 (Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation) dated 22 September 1958, the State Government referred certain questions in a dispute between the Madras Pinjarapole and its workmen to the Labour Court, including questions about fixation of pay scales, dearness allowance and whether the termination of services of five workers was justified and what relief they were entitled to.

The management of the Pinjarapole objected to the Labour Court's jurisdiction on the ground that the Pinjarapole was not an "industry" and, therefore, disputes with its workmen could not be deemed industrial disputes permitting a governmental reference. The Labour Court overruled the objection, relying on the judgment in The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha v. The State Of Bombay. The Labour Court then posted the industrial dispute for adjudication. The Pinjarapole management thereupon filed this writ petition challenging the Labour Court's jurisdiction.

When the petition came up on 26 July 1960 it was found that the material before the Labour Court was insufficient; the parties agreed to file further affidavits. Subsequent affidavits and documentary material (including a Golden Jubilee Souvenir of the Pinjarapole and committee proceedings of 13 April 1958) were admitted. On the basis of the admitted materials the Court proceeded to determine whether the Pinjarapole was an "industry" within S. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, considering (a) whether its Memorandum of Association permitted it to carry on an industry and (b) whether it actually carried on such an industry on the material date (the date of the State Government's referral).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under its Memorandum of Association, the Madras Pinjarapole could validly carry on an industry.
Whether, on the material date (the date of the Government's order under Section 10(1)(c) directing reference), the Pinjarapole actually carried on an activity that amounted to an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner / Management (Madras Pinjarapole)

Contended that the Pinjarapole is a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act (20 December 1906) whose objects are humanitarian — protection, care and treatment of old, infirm and injured animals and preserving them until natural death.
Asserted that its main activities are shelter, feeding and medical care for animals and that any commercial features (e.g., previous dairy experiment, occasional sales) had ceased — specifically, the Honorary Secretary stated that after 1 April 1958 the society confined itself to humanitarian activities and had stopped purchasing outside milk and stopped selling outside services of stud bulls.
Maintained that the incidental sales (milk from resident cows, dung cakes, manure, occasional sale of calves) are incidental results of maintenance and do not convert the society into a trade, business or undertaking covered by S.2(j).
Raised the primary objection that a dispute between the society and its workmen is not an "industrial dispute" and that the Government therefore had no power to refer the matter to the Labour Court.

Respondents / Workmen

Challenged the management's statements about cessation of commercial activities; filed a detailed counter-affidavit disputing the Secretary's account that business activities had stopped.
Asserted that the Pinjarapole engaged in commercial activities such as purchase and sale of milk, purchase of cows as economic assets (for dairy purposes), sale of cow dung cakes and manure, sale of calves and occasional commercial use of stud bulls — contending that these activities impart a commercial/industrial character to the institution.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha v. The State Of Bombay	The Supreme Court (considering hospitals) enunciated attributes of "undertaking" under S.2(j): an activity systematically or habitually undertaken for production/distribution of goods or for rendering material services to the community (or part thereof) with the help of employees; profit motive and capital investment are not decisive; character of the activity is decisive; activity must be organised like trade/business and not casual.	The Labour Court had relied on this decision to assert jurisdiction. The present Court applied the attributes set out in that decision and concluded the Pinjarapole's activities did not satisfy the requirement of rendering material services to the community (in the sense of satisfying human wants), and therefore the Hospital case tests were not satisfied here.
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha	(Same source as above in the opinion) The decision confirmed that lack of profit motive or capital investment does not preclude an activity from being an "industry"; focus is on the character and organisation of activity; provided a working principle/attributes for "undertaking" in S.2(j).	The Court adopted the attributes listed and assessed whether the Pinjarapole's activities were organised to satisfy material human needs; it found that while cooperation existed, the service was not directed to human wants.
Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union of Australia v. Melbourne Corporation	Isaacs and Rich, JJ. stated that industrial disputes arise where capital and labour co-operate in operations for satisfaction of human wants or desires; labour's demands are the same whether the result is money or money's worth.	The Court used this principle to clarify the necessity that capital-and-labour cooperation must be for satisfying material human needs as an element of an industrial operation.
Federated State School Teachers Association of Australia v. State of Victoria	Isaacs, J. emphasised that the cooperation must be "for the satisfaction of human wants and desires" and that these wants are material (not spiritual).	The Court relied on this exposition to distinguish activities devoted to animals' welfare (humanitarian/religious) from activities aimed at satisfying material human needs; it concluded that services devoted solely to animals do not meet this requirement.
D. N. Bannerji v. P. R. Mukherjee	Cited as a case concerned with the question whether there was cooperation between labour and management (the first of the two requisites for an industry).	The Court noted this and analogous cases as addressing the co-operation element; but observed that in those cases there was no dispute about satisfaction of human needs — unlike the present case.
Employers of the Osmania University v. Industrial Tribunal	Cited concerning whether there was co-operation between labour and management (i.e., the capital-and-labour cooperation element).	The Court referred to this precedent for the co-operation requirement while distinguishing the present facts on the satisfaction-of-human-needs requirement.
N. Union of Commercial Employees v. M. R. Maheer	Cited for issues relating to the co-operation requirement between labour and management.	The Court observed that these cases focus on the first requisite (co-operation); the present controversy turns on the second requisite — whether the activities satisfy human needs.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by first establishing the relevant facts from the affidavits and documents admitted after the hearing on 26 July 1960. It summarised the Pinjarapole's origin, objects and historical development: a charitable society (registered 20 December 1906) dedicated to sheltering and maintaining old, infirm and injured animals until their natural death; a humanitarian institution inspired by the SPCA; in later years it developed certain activities (dairy experiment, occasional purchase of cows, sale of milk, dung cakes, manure and calves) and had stud bulls for breeding.

The Court then analysed two questions identified as essential: (1) whether the Memorandum permitted carrying on an industry, and (2) whether the Pinjarapole actually carried on an industry on the material date. The Court examined the material produced: the Honorary Secretary's affidavit (stating that after 1 April 1958 the society confined itself to humanitarian activities and had ceased purchases of outside milk and outside breeding services) and committee resolutions (30 April 1958 resolution to stop purchase of outside milk within three months). The workers disputed these statements, but the Court accepted the petitioner's affidavits as corroborated by the resolution.

Turning to law, the Court referred to Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which defines "industry" and includes "undertaking." The Court relied on the Supreme Court's exposition in the Hospital Mazdoor case, which described attributes of an "undertaking": an activity systematically or habitually undertaken for production/distribution of goods or for rendering material services to the community with the help of employees; it must be organised akin to trade or business and not casual; profit motive and capital investment are not decisive — rather the character of the activity is.

Applying this framework the Court considered two essential requirements distilled from precedent: (1) an operation in which capital and labour co-operate; and (2) such operation should be for the satisfaction of human wants or desires (material human needs). The Court found that the co-operation element posed no difficulty — the Pinjarapole's operations involve co-operation of employer and employees for its functioning. However, the Court determined that the services rendered by the Pinjarapole were not directed to the satisfaction of human wants or material human needs. The society's services were essentially for the welfare of animals (humanitarian and religious in character) rather than to meet material human needs.

The Court examined the allegedly commercial features (purchase/sale of milk, sale of dung/manure, sale of calves, occasional outside breeding services). It concluded that these were either historical (a dairy experiment begun in 1936 and abandoned) or incidental results of maintaining animals as inmates (milk from resident cows, sale of surplus calves after cows go dry), and that the management had taken steps to end commercial aspects by April 1958. Even where some activities previously had a business character, they had ceased and the ongoing activities could not be said to amount to a trade or business. Thus, those incidental sales did not alter the essential humanitarian character of the institution.

On that basis the Court held that the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the Hospital Mazdoor case were not satisfied: although there was co-operation of employees, the activity was not for the satisfaction of material human needs/desires. Consequently, there was no "industrial dispute" empowering the State Government to refer the matter to the Labour Court. Given that the Labour Court had already held it had jurisdiction, the appropriate remedy was to quash that order.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The Labour Court's order holding that it had jurisdiction was quashed; a writ of certiorari was issued.

Implications:

The Court concluded that the Madras Pinjarapole, on the material date and based on the material before the Court, was not engaged in an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act because its activities were primarily humanitarian/religious and not directed to the satisfaction of material human wants or desires.
As a direct consequence, the State Government lacked power to refer the dispute as an industrial dispute to the Labour Court; the Labour Court therefore had no jurisdiction to proceed with enquiry in I.D. No. 103 of 1958.
The Court made no order as to costs.
The opinion applied existing precedents to the facts but did not purport to lay down a new general principle beyond the application of the articulated tests; no novel precedent was asserted to have been created by this decision in the text of the opinion.

Signed: V.C.S (as in the opinion)

Show full summary ...

The Management Of The Madras Pinjarapole, By Its Hony. Secretary Sri T. Bagchand Galada v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras And Another

This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition or other appropriate writ, prohibiting the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras, from proceeding with the enquiry in I. D. No. 103 of 1958, on his file. By G. O. No. 3621, Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation dated 22nd September, 1958, the State Government referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, Madras, certain questions in a dispute between the Madras Pin jarapole and its workmen. The questions related to the fixation of scales of pay, dearness allowance etc., for the various categories of workmen and whether the termination of services of the five workers mentioned in the reference was justified, and to what relief they were entitled. A preliminary objection was taken before the Labour Court to its jurisdiction to entertain the reference on the ground that there had been no valid reference to it by the Government. The objection was that the Madras Pinjarapole was not an industry, and any dispute between the management of Pinjarapole and its workmen could not be held to be an industrial dispute, so as to entitle the State Government to refer the same for adjudication by the Labour Court. The Labour Court overruled the objections relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court (which has since been affirmed by the Supreme Court) in The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha v. The State Of Bombay*(1). That decision was concerned with the case of the workers in a hospital. The Labour Court held that, although in the present case the Pinjarapole was only a charitable institution whose object was to maintain old and disabled animals, it should be held to be an industrial concern, as it employed workmen for carrying out its objects. The Labour Court posted the industrial dispute to a later date for adjudication on the questions referred to it. The management of the Pinjarapole has thereupon filed this writ petition for prohibiting the Tribunal from proceeding with the adjudication on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference.

The substantial point for consideration in this petition is whether the Madras Pinjarapole is an industry, so that a dispute between it and its workmen could be considered to be an industrial dispute. That question has got to be considered in its two aspects, namely, (1) whether under the Memorandum of Association, it could validly carry on an industry, and (2) whether even so it did actually carry on such an industry on the material date, namely, the date of the order of the State Government under S. 10 (1) (c) directing a reference of the dispute to the Labour Court.

When the petition came up for hearing on 26th July, 1960, it was found that the materials placed before the Labour Court were not sufficient to enable a satisfactory answer to the two questions referred to above. The learned Counsel, appearing for both sides, themselves realised the defect and agreed to file further affidavits giving necessary details for proper adjudication of the questions. The petitioner has, since then filed a further affidavit supported by two documents, (1) The Madras Pinjarapole Golden Jubilee Souvenir which gives an account of its origin and growth, and (2) a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the committee held on the 13th April, 1958. There was no objection to the admission in evidence of these documents. On behalf of the workers, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed, to which the petitioner has filed a further reply affidavit. On the materials now available, the following facts emerge.

The Madras Pinjarapole is a charitable society, registered under the Societies Registration Act on 20th December, 1906. The institution is situate within the City of Madras, and its premises occupy an area of about 12 acres of land, on which the munificence of several donors had enabled the construction of shelters for animals as well as a sanctuary for birds. The objects of the society, as stated in the Memorandum of Association, are the protection, care and treatment of old, infirm and injured cows, calves bullocks etc., and affording freedom to such animals from being slaughtered unnecessarily and to guarantee old age relief to the old, infirm and unserviceable animals till they die of natural causes. To achieve those objects, the means envisaged to be adopted are (a) maintenance of a shelter house for aged and unserviceable animals, (b) the feeding and treatment of all animals entrusted to the care of the society either by the owners anxious to pension their old animals or rescued by philanthrophic persons from the hands of butchers and the protection of animals remanded by Magistrates, (c) the breeding of bulls under ideal and sanitary conditions, (d) the maintenance of a dairy farm with special attention being paid to proper feeding, accommodation and water supply, the proceeds of which will go to the benefit of the other animals of the Pinjarapole, and (e) the bringing up of the calves of the young cows under healthy conditions.

It is not disputed that the aims and objects of the Society are purely humanitarian. The starting of the Pinjarapole was inspired by another charitable institution, namely, the Society For the Prevention of Cruelty Animals. Mr. Justice Boddam, in his welcome speech at the time of laying of the foundation stone of the Madras Pinjarapole stated:

“It may seem anomalous that the SPCA should take the imitative in starting such an institution but there are many reasons for our doing so. It unfortunately often happens that in pursuance of their duties and Inspectors of the Society find animals being driven which are quite unfit for further work, either from old age or from other causes. On conviction being obtained, these animals are sent to the Raja Venugopal Bahadur Hospital which is SPCA's headquarters for treatment and sometimes it is found that an animal is hopelessly incurable either from old age or from some other cause and the SPCA is confronted with the difficult question of what is to be done with the animal. The owner is probably too poor to be able to afford to keep a useless animal and if it is returned to him it will either be starved to death or be used again in spite of its unfitness or sold and used by the purchaser. What is the SPCA to do with it? In the absence of the Pinjarapole the only thing that the SPCA could do is to destroy it. To do so in this country is to run counter to the religious principles of all Indians who are members of the Society and so naturally to alienate their sympathies…… In these circumstances the SPCA has for the last few years been endeavouring to get a Pinjarapole established in Madras, a place where all non-carnivorous animals may be taken in and kept to live out to remainder of their lives in peace and without labour until in the natural order of things they die a natural death.”

The Madras Pinjarapole could be said to be an improvement upon the humanitarian activities of the SPCA in two substantial matters: (1) the SPCA had no means of providing shelters for the injured or discarded animals whereas the Pinjarapole has provided such shelters; and (2) merciful killing would not be objectionable from the point of view of the SPCA if that could relieve the animal of its distress, whereas the Pinjarapole being (as it has been stated) a purely “an oriental institution”, there would be an objection to the killing of the animals. Its objects and aims envisage the support and care of the animals till they die a natural death.

It was realised in the year 1912 that the progress of the institution was hampered by want of funds. Leading members of the Sowcar community, most of them being Jains, came forward to help the institution with necessary funds on condition of their being given a preponderating voice in the management of its affairs. They formed themselves into a committee called the Madras Pinjrapole Mahajana Committee, and out of 12 members who managed the Pinjarapole, 8 members were agreed to be elected from the Mahajan Committee. In the following year, the Provincial Government declared the Madras Pinjarapole an infirmary under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act XI of 1890. The activities of the Pinjarapole were gradually increased, and in the year 1937, the aims and objects of the institution were enlarged. A resolution was passed that protection of dry cows which were not necessarily old and infirm should be included among the aims and objects of the society. It is a matter of common knowledge that a number of dry cows in the City of Madras are sold away to butchers by the poor milkmen who could not support them. Butchers themselves officeer tempting prices for such cows, a temptation which the poverty of the milkman could not but lead him to succumb. Dry cows were admitted into the Pinjarapole to prevent them from going into the slaughter house. Maintenance of the dry cows called for stud bulls. Stud bulls were presented to the Society by the Government. In course of time, the dry cows brought forth their progeny and began to yield milk. The Pinjarapole was, therefore, in a position to sell milk yielded by the cows which were received by it with a view to protect them from the slaughter house. The second respondent has given details of the sale amounts in respect of the milk produced by the Pinjarapole from the year 1936 upto the year 1958 as an annexure to the counter affidavit. That shows that the institution had been receiving substantial sums every year by sale of milk.

As I stated already, the ideals of the SPCA and of the Madras Pinjarapole were different in some respects. It was but natural that the latter should, in course of time, desire to stand on its own legs and develop.

A separation was effected between the SPCA and the Madras Pinjarapole in the year 1948; the immoveable property and funds belonging to the institution which were till then in the name of the SPCA were transferred to the name of the Pinjarapole. A fillip to the activities of the institution was given in the year 1950, when the Madras Pinjarapole and the Mahajan Gowsala were amalgamated. At the end of 1957, there were 458 animals and in the following year, they increased to 523. The animals included cows, calves, bullocks, buffaloes, horses, asses and stud bulls.

It is apparent from the foregoing statement of the progress of the Pinjarapole that its object is purely humanitarian. There is no element of trade or business involved in the various activities of the society. It cannot even be said that the activities in question are in any way analogous to a trade or business, though I will have to refer to certain features which existed for some years which may be said to partake of such a character. According to the second respondent, the Pinjarapole had been doing business in the purchase and sale of milk. The society is also stated to have purchased cows as economic asset for the purpose of assisting them in their industry relating to the dairy farm. It is conceded that stud bulls earn monies when they are employed for breeding dry cows of the public. Detailed figures are given for the sale of the milk since the year 1939. It is also stated that the Pinjarapole has been selling dry cow dung cakes and also manure. It is contended that, as the objects of the society themselves envisage the adoption of means for acquiring monies for the maintenance of the animals, its activities should be held to be commercial in nature, and, therefore, an industry. I shall consider seriatim the factual basis for the several points mentioned above.

(1) Purchase and sale of milk: The Honorary Secretary of the Pinjarapole has stated that the activities of the Society after 1st April, 1958 were confined only to the following matters: (a) the maintenance of shelter house for aged and unserviceable animals; (b) the feeding and treatment of all animals entrusted to its care either by owners anxious to pension their old animals or rescued by philanthropic persons from the hands of butchers and the protection of animals remanded by Magistrates; and (c) the saving of old and infirm cows, bullocks, horses, dogs etc. The Honorary Secretary has categorically stated that a dairy farm was started in 1936 as an experimental measure, but that it was abandoned long ago. He has also stated that the management purchased outside milk and sold it along with their own, but that even that stopped from 1st April 1958. This statement is not accepted by the workers. But I have no hesitation in accepting the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. That statement is further corroborated by resolution at the meeting of the committee of the Pinjrapole held on the 30th April 1958. That resolution specifically states that steps should be taken to stop the purchase of outside milk within three months thereof. As regards the stud bulls, the Honorary Secretary has stated that the services were rendered by the Pinjrapole only to dry cows, in the Pinjarapole, though occasionally some dry cows belonging to the donors had the benefit. But it is stated that the latter practice had been stopped since 1st April 1958. In view of that statement I am of opinion that the presence of stud bulls in to institution like the Pinjrapole would not justify the inference that they were employed for commercial purposes. It may be that charges had been collected when cows from outside sent to the Pirnjarapole for breeding. Those instances were of a casual nature and even that has been stopped. The mere fact that occasionally the stud bulls in the Pinjarapole were utilised for the cows not being inmates thereof, could not alter the essential character of the institution, namely, the care of derelict cows and animals. Service, even if done to cows owned by outsiders, would still be service to animals, though incidentally it might benefit the owners as well.

2. Periodical sales by the society o the following: (1) milk (2) cow dung cakes and manure and (3) calves born of the cows in Pinjarapole and after they reach proper age and after the mother cows go dry. It is admitted that, for some years past, the Pinjarapole had been selling milk. During certain years, it even went a step further. The Pinjarapole purchased cows, maintained a dairy farm and supplemented their own production of milk with outside milk and sold them. These activities would certainly partake the character of a business, though the profits of such business might have gone to the humanitarian activities undertaken by the society. But the activities have long ago ceased. What the society is now having is the milk yielded by its own cows. Those cows are admittedly kept by the Pinjrapole till their lives. They are not sold. They are the property of the Pinjrapole. The milk yielded by those cows could only be considered as an incidental product in the maintenance of the cows. The sale of cow dung cakes and manure and of the calves after the mother cows become dry are also incidental. It cannot be held that a trade or business is conducted by the institution. A private owner of a cow who sells surplus milk or its products cannot be said to be doing business without further evidence that intended it as a commercial venture. Similarly sales of the yield of the inmates of the institution cannot in any way change its character which is essentially one for the benefit of the voiceless animals who would otherwise be starved or marched to the slaughter house.

To sum up, the main objects and activities of the Madras Pinjarapole are for affording shelter for all unserviceable animals, including dry cows, till the end of their lives. During their stay in the Pinjrapole, which is till they die, a natural death, they are looked after by properly feeding them; medical attention is also provided for them. The means adopted and existing on the material date do not contemplate any trade or business. The sales of milk and manure etc., are the natural and incidental result of the maintenance of the animals and cannot by themselves be regarded as changing the main object of the institution, namely, the care and preservation of the animals.

The question then is whether, under those circumstances, it can be said that the Madras Pinjrapole is engaged in any industry within the meaning of S. 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That section “defines an industry as meaning” any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.” I have already pointed out that there is no business or trade by the Pinjrapole. Nor is there a manufacture or calling of the employers. It has only to be considered whether the activities of the Society aforesaid would account to an “undertaking” by the society so as to come within the definition of that section. In State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha the Supreme Court considered the scope of the definition referred to above and enunciated the attributes which would make an activity an undertaking within the meaning of S. 2 (j) of the Act. That case was concerned with the decision of the question whether a group of hospitals run and managed by the State Government could be held to be an industry within the meaning of the Act. The Supreme Court held that an activity would be an industry, though in carrying it cut there was no profit motive. It was held that the presence of investment of capital would have no bearing on the question, and that it was the character of the activity which would be decisive as to whether it would come under S. 2 (j). Considering the attributes, the presence of which would make an activity an undertaking within the meaning of the Section, the; Supreme Court observed at p. 686:

“It is difficult to state these possible attributes definitely or exhaustively; as a working principle it may be stated that as activity systematically or habitually undertaken for the production or distribution of goods or for the rendering of material services to the community at large or a part of such community with the help of the employees is an undertaking. Such an activity generally involves the co-operation of the employer and the employees and its object is the satisfaction of material human needs. It must be organised or arranged in a manner in which trade or business is generally organised or arranged. It must not be casual nor must it be for oneself nor for pleasure. Thus the manner in which the activity in question is organised or arranged, the condition of the co-operation between employer and the employee necessary for its success and its object to tender material service to the community can be regarded as some of the features which are distinctive of activities to which S. 2 (j) applies “(italics mine).

I have already considered the circumstances prevailing in the Madras Pinjrapole on the date of the reference by the Government, and indicated that there is nothing in them to suggest that there was any activity of the society analogous to a trade or business. But such activity as the society is having cannot, however, be stated to be casual, though it could be said to have been inspired by the humanitarian instinct in man.

Two further aspects have however to be considered: (1) Whether the activity involves the co-operation of the employer and the employee and (2) whether it is one for rendering of material service to the community at large. On the first question, there can be no difficulty, as co-operation is essential for proper functioning of the society. But can the activity undertaken by the society be said to be one for the satisfaction of human wants and desires? It is no doubt true that, in certain cases, an owner, unwilling to maintain his dry or old or infirm animal, might send it to the Pinjrapole. But the object with which the Pinjrapole receives the animal is not for doing service to the owner, but to the animal by affording its protection till death. Essentially, therefore, the service rendered is not for human wants and desires, but for the sake of the voiceless animals, themselves. In State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazsoor Sabha, Gajendragadhkar, J., referred with approval to the decision of Isaacs, J., in The Federated State School Teachers Association of Australia v. State of Victoria and others(2). I shall presently refer to the relevant passage in that case. Before doing so it will be useful to refer to the earlier case in Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union of Australia v. Melbourne Corporation(3), where Isaacs and Rich, JJ., while considering the meaning of the phrase “industrial dispute” observed at page 55:

“Industrial disputes occur when, in relation to operations in which capital and labour are contributed in co-operation for the satisfaction of human wants or desires, those engaged in co-operation dispute as to the basis to be observed, by the parties engaged, respecting either a share of the product or any other terms and conditions of their co-operation.” Again at page 561, the learned Judges stated:

“Some of these will be particularised, but in the meantime it should be said that they will show in themselves and from the character of the disputants this will be confirmed, that so long as the operations are of capital and labour in co-operation for the satisfaction of matetial human needs, the objects and demands of labour are the same whether the result of the operations be money or money's worth.” (italics mine).

In Federated States School Teachers Association of Australia v. State of Victoria, Isaacs, J., observed at p. 581:

“The next feature to observe is that it has reference to the co-operation of the two groups “for the satisfaction of human wants and desires.” As appears from the Municipal Employees' case, the wants and desires referred to are ‘material’ that is, not spiritual. It is not that the objects by which they are satisfied are material, that is to say, corpuscular.”

Therefore, the two essential requirements to constitute an industry are (1) that there should be an operation in which capital and labour co-operate, and (2) that such operation should be for the satisfaction of human wants or desires. The decisions in D. N. Bannerji v. P. R. Mukherjee(4), Employers of the Osmania University v. Industrial Tribunal(5), and N. Union of Commercial Employees v. M. R. Maheer(6), were concerned with first of the two requisites mentioned above, namely, whether there was a co-operation between labour and management for the purpose of fulfilling human needs or desires. There was no controversy in those cases whether the activities were with the object of satisfying human needs. I am not, however, to be understood as saying that whenever service is done to animals, it will not be to satisfy human needs. For example, a person may manufacture and sell food for animals; maintain a breeding station for profit or as a business; keep a dairy farm for sale of milk and its products. In all those cases, there is an intention to trade or do business. Where there is no element of trade, but a mere service is done purely out of the instinct of pity or of religion, it cannot be an undertaking except when such service is to satisfy human needs. In the present case, the activities of the Pinjrapole have nothing to do with human needs. They are solely devoted fur the needs of helpless animals. Though incidentally such activities may have a business tinge about them, it cannot be said that they have for their object any human need or material welfare; the objects are mainly religious and humanitarian. It would follow that the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in The Hospital case, could not be held to be satisfied in that the activities of the Pinjrapole have not been directed to the satisfaction of human needs. I am, therefore, of opinion that there is no industrial dispute to empower the State Government to refer to the Labour Court for adjudication. There is, however, an order by the Labour Court holding that it had jurisdiction. It is but appropriate that the order should be quashed. A writ of certiorari will issue. There will be no order as to costs.

V.C.S

The Management Of Th... v. The Presiding Office...