Statutory labour welfare board held outside 'industry' classification, defeating workman status and jurisdiction under labour law.

A statutory board administering the Maharashtra Mathadi welfare scheme was held to perform governmental and regal functions, including registration, supervision, enforcement, inspection, inquiry and adjudication under the statute; on the functional approach and dominant nature test, those activities were not analogous to trade or industry, so the board did not fall within "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act. As a result, the claimant could not be treated as a workman in the reference against the board, and the labour court's refusal to entertain the dispute was upheld without examining the merits of termination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory board constituted under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 was an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the petitioner was a workman under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory board constituted under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 was an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The Board was constituted to administer the statutory scheme for regulation of employment and welfare of unprotected manual workers, to register employers and workers, to enforce the scheme, and to exercise powers of inspection, search, inquiry, and adjudication under the Act. Its functions were subject to governmental control and were essentially those of administration of a labour law enacted by the State. Applying the functional approach and the dominant nature test, these activities were held to be governmental or regal in character and not activities analogous to trade or industry. The reasoning also drew support from the principle that sovereign functions of the State, including administration of law, fall outside the statutory concept of industry.

Conclusion: The Board was not an industry.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was a workman under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: Once the Board was held not to be an industry, the foundational requirement for treating the petitioner as a workman in an industrial dispute against the Board did not survive. The Labour Court's jurisdictional view was therefore affirmed, and the merits of the termination dispute were not examined.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not a workman for the purpose of the reference against the Board.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on jurisdiction and the Labour Court's rejection of the reference was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory body constituted to administer a labour welfare statute and to perform powers of registration, supervision, enforcement, inspection, and adjudication under that statute performs governmental or regal functions, and such administration of law does not amount to an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

---