- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
All India Radio v. Santosh Kumar And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents were clerks, linemen, watchmen and other casual or daily-rated workers engaged by All India Radio (AIR) and various Doordarshan Kendras. Their services were either terminated or they were denied regularisation. Industrial adjudicatory authorities set aside the termination orders and directed reinstatement/regularisation with consequential benefits. AIR and Doordarshan challenged those awards in High Court writ petitions, which were dismissed. The present civil appeals (arising out of SLPs) before the Supreme Court are by AIR and Doordarshan against the High Court’s dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether All India Radio and Doordarshan fall within the definition of an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or whether they are exempt as entities performing sovereign functions of the State.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments (All India Radio & Doordarshan)
- AIR and Doordarshan discharge sovereign functions of the State and therefore do not constitute an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j).
- Reliance placed on Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees' Assn. v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 723, where telephone exchanges run by the Central Government were held to be performing sovereign functions.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents’ legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213 | Activities other than strictly sovereign functions come within “industry” under Section 2(j). | Treated as binding Constitution Bench authority establishing the inclusive scope of “industry.” Formed the primary basis for holding AIR and Doordarshan to be industries. |
| Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees' Assn. v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 723 | Telephone exchanges deemed to perform sovereign functions; employees held outside “industry.” | Cited by appellants but found to have been expressly overruled; therefore given no precedential weight. |
| G.M., Telecom v. A. Srinivasa Rao (1997) 8 SCC 767 | Overrules Bombay Telephone Canteen; re-affirms Bangalore Water Supply; 1982 amendment to Section 2(j) not yet in force. | Relied upon to reject appellants’ reliance on Bombay Telephone Canteen and to confirm present applicability of Bangalore Water Supply. |
| Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam Joseph (1996) 8 SCC 489 | Earlier view similar to Bombay Telephone Canteen. | Noted as overruled by G.M., Telecom; therefore not followed. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reiterated the binding nature of the seven-Judge Constitution Bench decision in Bangalore Water Supply, which holds that all activities except those strictly of a sovereign character are “industries” under Section 2(j). Examining the functioning of AIR and Doordarshan, the Court observed that both entities engage in commercial activities—specifically, the broadcasting and telecasting of advertisements and serials for consideration—which transcends purely sovereign duties. Consequently, their operations cannot be characterised as exclusively sovereign.
The appellants’ reliance on Bombay Telephone Canteen was rejected because that decision, along with Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post, had been expressly overruled by the three-Judge Bench in G.M., Telecom. The Court also noted that the 1982 statutory amendment redefining “industry” has not yet been brought into force; hence the original definition interpreted in Bangalore Water Supply continues to apply.
With the appellants’ principal jurisdictional objection failing, and there being no challenge pressed on the merits of the findings regarding violation of Section 25-F or on regularisation, the Court upheld the awards of the authorities below.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed. Interim stay orders are vacated. The respondents are to be reinstated to their previous posts with all consequential benefits within six weeks.
Implications: The decision confirms that All India Radio and Doordarshan are “industries” under the Industrial Disputes Act, reinforcing the continued applicability of Bangalore Water Supply. It secures statutory protections for employees of these entities but does not establish a new legal doctrine beyond affirming existing precedent.
1. Leave granted in the SLPs.
2. In this group of appeals, the common question which arises for our consideration is to the effect whether the appellant-All India Radio and Doordarshan, as the case may be, are “industries” within the meaning of the said term as defined by Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” for short).
3. The respondent-employees were either clerks or linemen/watchmen and other casual workers working at the relevant time as employees of either All India Radio or Doordarshan Kendras. In Civil Appeal No. 2423 of 1989 Respondent 1 was Grade II Clerk in Chattarpur Station of All India Radio. In Civil Appeal No. 2135 of 1993 respondent-workman was casual Fitter-cum-Watchman working at Doordarshan Kendra T.V Relay Centre, Dwarka, Gujarat, while the contesting respondents in civil appeals arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 7722-7722-A of 1993 were daily-rated workmen working at Doordarshan Kendra, Ranchi. They had challenged their orders of termination or non-regularisation before the authorities constituted under the Act. Their termination orders were set aside and regularisation was granted, as the case may be, to the respondents concerned with consequential benefits. The writ petitions filed before the High Court by All India Radio or Doordarshan Kendra, as the case may be, were dismissed and that is how they are before us in these appeals.
4. The solitary contention canvassed before us by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is to the effect that All India Radio and Doordarshan Kendra discharge sovereign functions of the State and they are not industries within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. Now, it has to be kept in view that as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court consisting of seven learned Judges in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213 save and except the sovereign functions, all other activities of employers would be covered within the sweep of term “industry” as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act. The functions which are carried on by All India Radio and Doordarshan cannot be said to be confined to sovereign functions as they carry on commercial activity for profit by getting commercial advertisements telecast or broadcast through their various kendras and stations by charging fees. Looking to the functions of Doordarshan and its set-up, as seen from Annexure 1 [annexed to SLPs (C) Nos. 7722-7722-A of 1993], being the extracts from Doordarshan Manual Vol. I, it cannot be said that the functions carried on by them are of a purely sovereign nature. Day in and day out advertisements are being telecast and even serials are being telecast on payment of appropriate charges and on which there cannot be any dispute. Same is the position with All India Radio. However, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants vehemently relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees' Assn., Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 723. It is true that in that case a Bench of two learned Judges took the view that the telephone exchanges run by the Central Government were discharging sovereign functions and, therefore, the employees working in the canteen run by such telephone exchanges cannot be said to be working in an “industry” as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act. However, the said decision has been expressly overruled by a judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of G.M, Telecom v. A. Srinivasa Rao (1997) 8 SCC 767. In that case, Chief Justice Verma speaking for the three-Judge Bench in para 7 of the Report has expressly overruled the said decision. In that decision another decision in Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam Joseph (1996) 8 SCC 489 is also overruled. It has been held in the said decision that the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in Bangalore Water Supply (1978) 2 SCC 213 holds the field and the amendment to the definition of Section 2(j) as made in 1982 is not yet brought in force and so long as the amending definition does not come into force the decision in Bangalore Water Supply (1978) 2 SCC 213 will hold the field. Consequently, it must be held that the appellant-All India Radio as well as Doordarshan are industries within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act and the said definition is operative being applicable at present and as existing on the statute-book as on date.
5. We may mention that so far as the question of illegality of the orders of termination is concerned, on the facts found by the authorities below it is to be held that the termination orders were violative of Section 25-F of the Act and on which, in fairness to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, no submission was raised before us for consideration. Similarly regularisation of services was also not challenged on merits. As a result of this discussion the appeals are dismissed. Interim stay orders are vacated. The respondents concerned will be reinstated in service with all the benefits available to them under the impugned orders. The appellants shall reinstate the respondents concerned within six weeks from today and implement the orders passed by the authorities below within that time. It is obvious that the reinstatement will be on the same post in which the respondents were working prior to the impugned termination orders.
Alert