D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) IN this petition the Union of India (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) has impugned the adverse award rendered by the Labour Court, Jullundur, dated 12th August, 1976 on the preliminary objection raised before it by the Petitioner to the effect that the application of Respondent No. 2, Shri Sohan Singh Bhatti invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not maintainable as the Post and Telegraph Department, in which he was employed as a Clerk could not be termed an 'industry' as defined in the Act and Respondent No. 2 could not be treated as 'workman'.
(2.) THE Labour Court after liberally quoting from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Workmen, I.S. Institution v. I.S. Institution : AIR 1976 S.C 145 and Madras Gym. Club Employees Union v. Management : AIR 1968 S.C. 554, held the Post and Telegraph Department to be falling within the definition of 'industry' as defined under the Act. What constitutes an 'industry' is an area, the twilight part, whereof is covered by plethora of decided cases both of the High Courts and of the apex Court. In regard to the border line matters, every new decided case instead of showing any light has, in fact, added to the confusion more so, if the Court opted to widen the beneficial sweep of the expression 'industry'. Their Lordship in, what can be termed as the ultimate dictum on the point, Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa : AIR 1978 S.C. 548 sought to clearly delineate the scope of expression 'industry' and in the process overruled some of their own earlier judgments as well as those of the High Courts. The endeavour was justified but with what success it is difficult to say. Two of the Judges who had rendered their opinion later had invoked the legislative interference to clear the confusion and set the matter right. So, it is not surprising that the discerning of the ratio of the judgment itself posed problem to the Courts and one of the matters here concerning P.W.D. (B&R) department required the intervention of a Full Bench in State of Punjab v. Shri Kuldip Singh, 1983 Lab. I.C. 83 to identify the true ratio of Bangalore Water Supply's case (supra) and apply the same to the facts before it. I would, therefore, profit by the spade work done by the Full Bench in this regard, rather than take upon myself to analyse afresh the ratio of that case.
(3.) SANDHAWALIA , C.J., who delivered the opinion for the Bench in the light of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgments divided the governmental activity in following four categories: (1) The sovereign or the regal functions of the State which are the primary and inalienable rights of a constitutional Government. (2) Economic adventures clearly partaking of the nature of trade and business undertaken by it as part of its welfare activities. (3) Organised activity not stamped with the total indicia of business yet bearing a resemblance to or being analogous to trade and business. (4) The residuary organized governmental activity which may not come within the ambit of the aforesaid three categories.;