Industrial Disputes Act coverage for market committee employees confirmed where statutory functions are regulatory, not sovereign.

An Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 is an industry under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because its core functions are regulatory and welfare-oriented, not primary and inalienable sovereign functions. Its statutory character and the presence of government servants among its staff do not by themselves exclude the remaining employees from industrial law. Section 59(3) of the State Act was confined to its limited non obstante effect on service-transfer compensation and did not expressly or by necessary implication exclude the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent-employees were therefore workmen entitled to invoke that Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 is an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) Whether section 59(3) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 excludes the operation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in relation to the market committee's employees.

Issue (i): Whether an Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 is an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The definition of industry under the Industrial Disputes Act is of wide amplitude, and the exclusion is confined to strictly primary and inalienable sovereign functions. The committee's statutory scheme was examined with reference to the preamble, objects and reasons, and the relevant provisions governing regulation of agricultural produce markets, levy of fees, licensing, staffing, and market administration. Those functions were held to be regulatory and welfare-oriented rather than sovereign. The dominant nature of the committee's activities was the organized regulation of trading in agricultural produce, and such functions could also be performed by private persons. The fact that the body is statutory, or that some staff are government servants, does not by itself take the remaining employees outside the Act.

Conclusion: The market committee falls within the definition of industry under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the respondent-employees are workmen under that Act.

Issue (ii): Whether section 59(3) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 excludes the operation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in relation to the market committee's employees.

Analysis: The non obstante clause in section 59(3) was read as operating only to the limited extent of denying compensation or payment on transfer of services under the specified statutory scheme. It was not treated as a general exclusion of the Industrial Disputes Act for all employees of the market committee. No express or necessary implication excluding the Industrial Disputes Act from the field of dispute was found in the State Act.

Conclusion: The State Act does not exclude the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 beyond the limited sphere stated in section 59(3), and the respondent-employees remain entitled to invoke that Act.

Final Conclusion: The appeal fails because the market committee is not a sovereign body outside industrial law, the respondent-employees are covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Labour Court and High Court were correct in sustaining their relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory body engaged in organized, regulatory, and welfare-oriented activity is an industry if its dominant functions are not primary and inalienable sovereign functions, and a limited non obstante clause in the parent statute does not displace the Industrial Disputes Act beyond its express field.

---