Creative artistic performance is not workman's work under industrial law; art-promotion institutions may fall outside industry.

An institution devoted to promoting and preserving art and culture was treated as outside the ordinary concept of an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, because its activities did not reflect the systematic industrial structure contemplated by the statute. Artists engaged in drama, theatre management and allied creative functions were also held not to be workmen, as their role was characterised as creative artistic performance rather than manual, technical, clerical or supervisory work. Incidental duties attached to the engagement did not change that essential character, and the labour adjudication treating them as workmen could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an institution engaged in promotion and preservation of art and culture is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) whether artists engaged in drama, theatre management, and allied creative activities are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (i): whether an institution engaged in promotion and preservation of art and culture is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Analysis: The statutory definition of industry, as enlarged by the controlling tests of systematic activity, employer-employee cooperation, and production of goods or services, was applied. An institution devoted to artistic promotion and preservation does not ordinarily involve large-scale productive activity or a service structure comparable to conventional industrial undertakings. On that basis, it was held doubtful whether the institution could be brought within the definition of industry.

Conclusion: The institution was not treated as an industry for the purposes of the dispute.

Issue (ii): whether artists engaged in drama, theatre management, and allied creative activities are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Analysis: The definition of workman was construed to cover manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work, but not creative artistic performance of the kind involved here. The work performed by the respondents was characterised as creative expression requiring artistic talent, technique, and freedom of expression, rather than work of the genus contemplated by the statutory definition. The ancillary duties attached to the engagement did not alter the essential character of the employment.

Conclusion: The artists were not workmen within the meaning of the Act.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary objection of the appellant succeeded, and the labour adjudication treating the respondents as workmen could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Creative artistic performance, even when performed under contractual engagement and accompanied by incidental duties, does not constitute work of the kind contemplated by the statutory definition of workman, and an art-promotion institution of this character is not readily classifiable as an industry.

---