http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ALL INDIA RADIO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR & ANR, ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/02/1998

BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998 Present              Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar              Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Jagannadha Rao Ms. K.Amareswari,  Sr. Adv.,  A. Subba  Rao, Hemant  Sharma, S.K.Dwivedi, P.Parmeswaran,  C.V.Subba Rao,  Advs, With  her for the appellant R. Venkataswami,  Sr. Adv., Ms, K.Sarada Devi, Ranbir Yadav, M.P.Jha, Ram Ikbal Roy, Advs. with him for the Respondents.                          O R D E R      The following order of the Court was delivered:      Leave granted in the S.L.Ps.      In this  group of  appeals, the  common question  which arises for  our consideration  is to  the effect whether the appellant. All  India Radio and Doordarshan, as the case may be, are  ‘Industries’ within the meaning of the said term as defined by Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short).      The  respondent-employees   were   either   clerks   or linemen/watchmen and  other casual  workers working  at  the relevant time  as employees  of either  All India  Radio  or Doordarshan kendras.  In  Civil  Appeal  No.  2423  of  1989 respondent no.1  was Grade-II Clerk in Chattarpur Station of All  India   Radio.  In   Civil  Appeal  No.  2135  of  1993 respondent-workman was casual Fitter-cum-Watchman working at Doordarshan Kendra  T.V. Relay Centre Dwarka, Gujarat, while the contesting  respondents in  civil appeal  arising out of S.L.P,(c) Nos.7722-7722A  of 1993  were daily-rated  workmen working at  Doordarshan Kendra,  Ranchi. They had challenged their orders of termination or non-regularisation before the authorities constituted  under the  Act.  Their  termination orders were set aside and regularisation was granted, as the case may be, to the concerned respondents with consequential benefits. The  writ petitions filed before the High Court by All India  Radio or  Doordarshan Kendra, as the case may be, were dismissed  and that  is how they are before us in these appeals.      The solitary  contention canvassed  before  us  by  the learned senior  counsel for  the appellants is to the effect that  All  India  Radio  and  Doordarshan  Kendra  discharge

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

sovereign functions of the State and they are not industries within the  meaning of  Section 2(j) of the Act. Now, it has to be  kept in  view that as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court  consisting of  seven learned  Judges in the case Bangalore   Water Supply  and Sewerage Bank etc v. A Rajappa and others  etc. reported  in (1978)  2 SCC  213,  save  and except the  sovereign  function,  all  other  activities  of employers  would   be  covered  within  the  sweep  of  term ‘industry’ as  defined under  Section 2(j)  of the  Act. The functions which  are carried  on  by  All  India  Radio  and Doordarshan cannot  be said  to  be  confined  to  sovereign functions as they carry on commercial activity for profit by getting  commercial  advertisements  telecast  or  broadcast through their various kendras and stations by charging fees. Looking to  the functions  of Doordarshan and its set up, as seen from  Annexure-1 (annexed to S.L.P. (c) Nos. 7722-7722A OF 1993),  being the extracts from Doordarshan Manual Vol.I, it cannot be said t hat the functions carried on by them are of purely  sovereign nature.  Day in  and out advertisements are being  telecast and  even serials  are being telecast on payment of  appropriate charges and on which there cannot be any dispute.  Same is  the position  with All  India  Radio. However,  learned   senior  counsel   for   the   appellants vehemently relied  upon a decision of this Court in the case of  Bombay   Telephone  Canteen,   Employees’   Association, Prabbadevi Telephone  Exchange v. Union of India and another [(1897) 6  SCC 723]. It is true that in that case a Bench of two learned Judge took the view that the telephone exchanges run by  the Central  Government were  discharging  sovereign functions and,  therefore,  the  employees  working  in  the canteen run by such telephone exchanges cannot be said to be working in  ‘industry’ as  defined under Section 2(j) of the Act. However,  the said  decision has  been expressly  over- ruled by  a judgment of a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom v. A. Srinivasa Rao and others [(1997) 8 SCC 767]. In that case, Chief Justice Verma speaking for  the three   Judge  Bench in paragraph 7 of the Report has  expressly over-ruled  the said decision. In that decision other  decision in Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam  Joseph and  others [(1996)  8 SCC  489] is  also over-ruled. It  has been  held in the said decision that the ratio of  the Constitution Bench judgment in Bangalore Water Supply(supra) holds  the field  and  the  amendment  to  the definition of  Section 2(j)  as made  in 1982  is not  still brought in force and so long as the amending definition does not come  into force the decision in Bangalore  Water Supply (supra) will  hold the  field. Consequently, it must be held that the  appellant-All India  Radio as  well as Doordarshan are industries within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act and the   Said  definition is  operative being applicable at present and as existing on the Stature Book as on date.      We  may   mention  that  so  far  as  the  question  of illegality of the orders of termination is concerned, on the facts found   by the authorities below it is to be held that the termination orders were violative of Section 25-F of the Act and  on which, in fairness to the learned senior counsel for the  appellants, no  submission was raised before us for consideration. Similarly regularisation of services was also not challenged on merits. As a result of this discussion the appeals are  dismissed. Interim stay orders are vacated. The respondents concerned will be reinstated in service with all the benefits  available to  them under  the impugned orders. The appellants  shall reinstate  the  respondents  concerned within six  weeks from today and implement the orders passed by the  authorities below  within that  time. It  is obvious

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

that the reinstatement will be on the same post in which the respondents were  working prior  to the impugned termination orders.