S.N. Bhargava, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 29-6-1977 (Annexure-1) passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur, by which it was held that Zila Parishad is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (here in after referred to as the Act of 1947'), and that the termination of the non petitioner No. 1 was improper, unjustified and illegal, being violative of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, and therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 25-9-1978, but the State application filed along with the writ petition was rejected, and therefore the impugned Award dated 29-6-1977 has been implemented, and the non-petitioner No. 1 was taken back in service.
3. Since the writ petition involves an important question as to whether Zila Parishad is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947, a general notice was also issued to the learned members of the Bar, to address the Court on the subject, if they so liked.
4. We have heard learned Counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 has submitted that Panchayat Samiti has been held to be an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947, by this Court in following cases:
6. In Jeth Mal v. State of Rajasthan 1985 WLN (UC) 537 learned Single Judge of this Court, relying on an earlier decision of this Court in Shanti Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 270/83), decided on 9-1-1985, and Panchayat Samiti, Kotdi v. Behroolal (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 2/75 decided on 5-9-1984) and S.B. Civil Writ No. 536/83 Deva Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 28-7-1985, has held that Panchayat Samiti is an 'industry, within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947.
7. Similar view was again expressed by Justice Mathur in Kewal Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1986 RLW 331).
8. Earlier also, Justice DP. Gupta, as he then was, in Panchayat Samiti Shahpura v. Labour Court and Anr. 1981 WLN (UC) 435 held that Panchayat Samiti conducting agricultural operations with help of tractor is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947.
9. In Chhaju Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1982 RLR 663, a Single Judge of this Court observed that the Panchayat Samitis are engaged in the industrial activity of maintaining buildings and roads; that the Department of the Panchayat Samiti under which the petitioner was discharging his work as Mistry' (Civil) is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947.
10. Mr. Keshote further place reliance on a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Allah Deen v. The Municipal Board, Deshnok and Ors. (1986) 2 Judicial Surveyor 62) wherein their Lordships, after considering several judgments of the Supreme Court, held that octroi Department of the Municipal Board Deshnok constitutes 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947.
11. He has further placed reliance on an earlier decision of this Court in Vinay Kumar v. State and Ors. wherein Public Works Department which is engaged in industrial activity of maintaining, building and roads, has been held to be an 'industry'.
12. He has also placed reliance on another decision in Mahesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan 1974 RLW 338 where the Irrigation Department of the State Government, which is engaged in constructing dams, canals etc. and distributing and supplying water for irrigation purposes, has been held to be an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947.
13. Our attention has also been drawn to yet another decision of this Court in Radha Krishna Sharma v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation 1986 RLR 510 where in the Rajasthan Financial Corporation has also been held to be an 'industry'.
14. Even the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department of the Government of Rajasthan has been held to be an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947, by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1720/1985 decided on 29-11 1985 Surendra Kumar Gavani v. State of Rajasthan which order has been confirmed by a division bench in special appeal, on 19-3-1986.
15. Mr Keshote has brought to our notice a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1984(1) LLR 571 where their Lordships have held that Zila Parishad is an 'industry' for the purpose of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947.
16. Mr. Keshote also brought to our notice a recent decision of the Supreme Court in 1987(3) SVLR 230 against judgment of Gujarat High Court which had held that the Octroi Deptt. of the Panchayat was an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. But the Supreme Court did not express any opinion on this question since their Lordships were of the opinion that the action of Panchayat being malafide, the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition.
17. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a famous case in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. : (1978)ILLJ349SC wherein their Lordships after discussing all earlier cases on the point, have given guidelines which should be taken note of while deciding the question whether a particular department or corporation is an 'industry' or not, and since none of the conditions mentioned there in is satisfied in the case of Zila Parishads, it cannot be held to be an 'industry'. He has drawn our attention specially to Section 57 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959.
18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also perused the various authorities cited before us.
19. In Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 came into effect from 1-1-1954. Panchayats were established which had administrative as well as judicial powers on the basic units at the village level. The Raj. Panchayat Act lacked the hierarchy of the administration, and to remove that difficulty, the Rajasthan State. Legislature enacted the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 which also amended the Rajasthan Panchayat Act in some respects, and this Act, established Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads throughout the State and thus created two new statutory bodies.
20. Powers and functions of Panchayat Samiti have been enumerated in Section 23 of the Act of 1959 which runs an under:
23. Powers and functions of a Panchayat Samiti:
(1) Every Panchayat Samiti shall exercise all the functions entrusted to it by under this Act and such other powers and functions as may be conferred on and delegated or entrusted to it by the State Government or carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular the Panchayat Samiti shall perform the functions specified in the Schedule.
21. In the Schedule annexted to the Act of 1959, functions of Panchayat Samiti have been mentioned with different headings like-community development., agriculture, animal husbandry, health and rural sanitation, education, social education, communications co-operation, cottage industries, work amongst backward classes, emergency relief, collection of statistics, trusts, forests, rural housing, publicity and miscellaneous.
22. Section 34 of the Act of 1959 deals with the funds of Panchayat Samiti; Section 35 deals with the income and expenses of a Panchayat Samiti, whereas Section 57 of the Act of 1959 describes the powers and functions of Zila Parishad which runs as under:
57. Powers and functions of the Zila Parishad-Every Zila Parishad shall have the power to:
(i) examine according to rules made in this behalf the budgets of the Panchayat Samitis in the district;
(ii) distributes among the Panchayat Samitis the ad hoc grant allotted to the district by the State Government;
(iii) co-ordinate and consolidate the plans prepared by the Panchayat Samitis;
(iv) co-ordinate the work of the Panchayats and the Panchayat Samitis;
(v) exercise and perform such other powers as and functions in relations to any development programme as the State Government may, be notification, confer on or entrust to it;
(vi) exercise and perform such powers and functions as are conferred on and delegated or entrusted to it by or under this Act;
(vii) classify fairs and festivals, other than those that are or may here after to be managed by the State Government, as Panchayat fairs and festivals and Panchayat Samiti fairs and festivals and review upon a representation made in that behalf by a Panchayat Samiti, such classification;
(viii) classify roads (other than Rational highways, State highways and major district roads)as Panchayat Samiti roads and village roads
(ix) supervise generally the activities of the Panchayat Samitis in the district;
(x) Organise camps, conferences and seminars of all Sarpanchas and other Panchas and members of Panchayat Samitis in the district;
(xi) advise the State Government on all matters concerning the activities of Panchayats and Panchayat Samitis;
(xii) advise the State Government on matters concerning implementation of any statutory or executive order specially referred by the State Government to the Zila Parishad;
(xiii) advise the State Government on all matters relating to the implementation within the district of the various schemes under the Five years Plans;
(xiv) watch over all agricultural and production programmes, construction programmes, employments and other targets laid down for the district and see that they are being property carried out accomplished and implemented and review, at least twice a year the progress of such programmes and targets;
(xv) collect such data as it deems necessary.;
(xvi) publish statistics or any other information relating to the activities of the local authorities in the district, and
(xvii) require any local authority to furnish information regarding its activities.
23. Argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that Zila Parishad has only supervisory duties for the better management of the Panchayat Samitis and does not function of its own. does not find support: from Sections 57 of the Act of 1959. It is true that Zila Parishad has to supervise generally the activities of the Panchayat Samiti in the District, but apart from that, various other duties have also been assigned to it and powers have been given under Section 57, quoted above.
24. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply (supra) observed as under:
Industry' as defined in Section 2(j) has wide import.
Where there is (i) systematic activity, (it) organised by co-operation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial element is chimerical), (iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss e.g. making, on a large scale, prasad or food), prima facie, there is an 'industry' in that enterprise.
Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private or other sector.
The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer-employee relations. Section 2(j) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two Limbs, their meaning cannot be magnified to over-reach itself.
25. Keeping in mind the above guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply's case (supra), and also the fact that the Panchayat Samiti has been consistently held to be an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act, we have no doubt in our mind that Zila Parishad shall also fall within the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947. On merits also, we are not persuaded to agree with the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tyagi.
26. We hold that Zila Parishad is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since there is a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 in terminating the services of non-petitioner No. 1, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
27. In the result, we do not find any force in this writ petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.