"INDUSTRY" Industry in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Triple test to be applied and the dominant nature test-Whether the statutory Body performing what is in essence regal functions by providing the basic amenities to the citizens is outside the scope of the definition.

The respondent employees were fined by the Appellant Board for misconduct and various sums were recovered from them. Therefore, they filed a Claims Application No. 5/72 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, alleging that the said punishment was imposed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellant Board raised a preliminary objection before the Labour Court that the Board, a statutory body performing what is in essence a regal function by providing the basic amenities to the citizens, is not an industry within the meaning of the expression under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently the employees were not workmen and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the work- men. This objection being overruled, the appellant Board filed two Writ Petitions viz. Nos. 868 and 2439 of 1973 before the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore. The Division Bench of that High Court dismissed the petitions and held that the appellant Board is "industry" within the meaning of the expression under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appeals by Special Leave, considering "the chances of confusion from the crop of cases in an area where the common man has to understand and apply the law and the desirability that there should be a comprehensive, clear and conclusive declaration as to what is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act as it stands" were placed for consideration by a larger Bench.