LODHA, J - (1.) THESE writ petitions are directed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 27th June, 1972, and since they arise out of the same proceedings and common questions of fact and law are involved, I propose to dispose them of by a single judgment.
(2.) THE respondent No. 2 is a union of the employees of the various Household Departments of the Maharaja of Jaipur, such as, City Palace, Motor Garage, Gardens and Nursery, Atish Stables, Dairy and Farming. In the City Palace are Museum, Farrashkhana and Baggikhana and Kapatdwara On 10-3-1969, respondent No. 2 presented a charter of eight demands before the Household Management, but they were rejected. No settlement before the Conciliation Officer could be arrived at, hence the Government of Rajasthan by notification dated 17th October, 1969 (a copy of which has been placed on the record and marked Annexure A) referred the following dispute (translated into English) to the Court - "are the following demands of the employees of the various Household Departments of the Maharaja of Jaipur presented by the Jaipur Horse Breeding & Riding Association Karamchari Sangh before the Master of Household ju3t and proper? If not, to what relief are the employees entitled? (a) Should the employees be given Dearness Allowance in accordance with the recommendations of the Mathur Committee and should they be awarded arrears of the past years? (b) Should the scale of pay of the employees be fixed and should they be awarded an increment of Rs. 20/-per year for the last five years? (c) Should the employees be awarded bonus for the past years in accordance with the provisions of the Bonus Act ? and (d) Should the employees be awarded house rent and medical? " The respondent No. 2 filed a statement of claim before the Industrial Tribunal on behalf of the employees. The Master of the Household of Maharaja of Jaipur filed the written statement wherein he took certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the claim and contended that what had been referred to by the State Government was not an "industrial dispute", as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (which will be referred to as the Act ). It was urged that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim. It was also contended that the S. M. S. Investment Corporation Private Limited and the Jaipur House Breeding and Riding Association were a corporate body and a registered partnership firm, respectively and did not form part of the petitioner's Household. Respondent No. 2 examined four witnesses and five witnesses were examined on behalf of the Maharaja of Jaipur. The Tribunal by its award dated 27th June, 1972 (published on 4 9 1972) held that the City Palace, Gardens and Nursery, Farms and Dairy, Atish Stables and Motor Garrage of the Maharaja of Jaipur come within the definition of the word "industry", as defined in the Act. It classified the employees in the aforesaid departments into three catego-ries viz,, un-skilled, semi-skilled and skilled, and fixed minimum wages for each category as Rs. 85/-, Rs. 100/- and Rs. 125/ respectively on the basis of minimum wages pres-cribed by the State Government in the year 1971 under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Tribunal further prescribed scales of wages for the aforesaid categories as follows - (1) Un-skilled . . . . . . 45-1-69 (2) Semiskilled . . . . . . . 60-2-90 (3) Skilled . . . . . . 85-5 125-10 175 The Tribunal also held that the employees shall be fixed in the above pay scales with effect from 17-10 1969. So far as Dearness Allowance is concerned, the Tribunal allowed the same as per recommendations of the Mathur Committee with neutralisation at the rate of 0. 60 p. (sixty paisa) per point rise calcuted on the basis of the index of prices on 1st January, 1970, with benefit of the same to the employees with effect from 17th October, 1969, and it was further directed that the arrears be paid within two months from the publication of the Award. The claim for bonus and medical facilities was disallowed. Aggrieved by the Award of the Tribunal, Shri Bhawani Singh, Maharaja of Jaipur, the Jaipur Horse Breeding and Riding Association, Jaipur and the Managing Director, S. M. S. Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. , Jaipur have filed separate writ petitions but they have all been argued by Mr. C. M. Sharma on behalf of the petitioners. In writ petition No. 1686 of 1972, the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner's that the various Departments of the Household do not fall within the definition of term "industry" as defined in the Act, and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim with regard to the employees working in the Household.
(3.) "industry"" has been defined in sec. 2 ( j ) of the Act as follows - "2 (j) "industry,' means any business, trade undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen; " Sec. 2 (k) defines "industrial dispute" as follows - "2 (k) "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employees and employers or between employers and workmen, or between workmen end workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person; " The question what is an "industry" has been the subject-matter of a number of decision of the Supreme Court, and it would, therefore, be proper to refer to some of them to find out as as to what are the essential characteristics of an "industry". In D. N. Banerji vs. R,p. Mukherjee (l), it was observed that "undertaking" in the first part of the definition and "industrial occupation or avocation" in the second part obviously mean much more than what is ordinarily understood by trade or business. The definition was apparently intended to include within its scope what might not strictly be called a trade or business venture. Their Lordships held that "having regard to the definitions found in our Act, the aim or objective that the Legislature had in view, and nature, variety and range of disputes that occur between employees and employees, we are forced to the conclusion that the definitions in our Act include also disputes that might arise between municipalities and their employees in branches of work that can be said to be analogous to the carrying out of a trade or business". ;