JUDGMENT
G.H. Guttal, J.
1. J. Rajan, a discharged employee of the Kerala State Science & Technological Museum, Trivandrum, the respondent No. 2 herein, has instituted this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction compelling the District Labour Officer, the respondent No. 3 herein, to initiate conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act in regard to the termination of his services, a direction quashing the order of termination made by the respondent No. 2 on November 5, 1986 (Ext. P3), the order of the Government of Kerala, the respondent No. 1, dated July 29, 1989 rejecting his application for reinstatement (Ext P6) and the order of the respondent No. 3 dated September 20, 1989(Ext.P7) rejecting the prayer for initiation of proceedings for reconciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. On the arguments advanced by counsel, two points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the Kerala State Science and Technological Museum, hereinafter referred to as the Museum, is an industry as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and
(ii) Whether the Museum is “State” or “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The questions arise out of the facts stated in the next paragraph.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Watchman in the office of the respondent No. 2 on June 27, 1983. By an order dated November 5, 1986 the respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the petitioner in view of certain complaints. Having regard to the questions urged in this case, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the accusations in the complaint. As the memorandum of association and Rules and Regulations of the Museum reveal, the museum is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. Its objects are (f) dissemination of scientific literacy among all sections of the society, (ii) highlighting the natural resources and industrial potential, progress in industrialisation, and the research and development activities in India, (iii) stimulate scientific and innovative thoughts in the youth, (iv) to hold mobile science exhibitions, (v) to organise and conduct science programmes such as literacy research in the history of science, (vii) develop the museum as a training centre in Museum Technology and practice, (viii) award degrees and diplomas and so on. In a nutshell the object of the society is to stimulate and encourage scientific literacy among the masses. The governing body of the society composed of 17 members consists of 9 officers of the State Government like Secretaries to Government, the Director of Technical Education and so on. The Minister of Education is the Ex-officio Chairman. The remaining 7 members consist of three Principals of colleges, the Director of National Council of Science Museums, a Professor from Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Director of Aerograph, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and the Special Officer of the Museum. Rules and Regulations governing the museum provide for appointment of officers and other employees, maintenance of books of account, exercise of control and discipline over the employees of the museum, appointment of delegates to represent the museum in conferences in India, establishment of libraries and purchase of scientific material, institution of scholarships, prizes and trophies. The funds of the museum consist of grants from contributions from national and international agencies and other collections. The G.O. (MS) 150/86/H. Edn. dated June 11, 1986 issued by the Higher Education Department of the Government of Kerala notified that the Kerala State Science and Technology Museum is “an autonomous organisation established by the Government for popularisation of science through non-formal science education programmes,” and accorded sanction under Rule 14 of the Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1960 to the Director of Public Instruction, Director of Technical Education, Director of Collegiate Education and Director, Kerala State Science and Technology Museum to raise funds for the museum by way of voluntary contributions. Another order G.O. (MS) No. 56/85/H. Edn, dated March 19, 1985 recognised the museum as an institution of higher education and scientific research for administrative purposes.
The business of the Museum is carried on by the Board of Governors. It is not governed by regulations framed by the Government.
4. I will firstly consider whether the Museum is “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The leading authority on this subject is the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A, Rajappa and Ors. (1978-I-LLJ-349). Three tests were laid down for determining whether a particular entity is an industry:
(a) An establishment is an industry if it is engaged in (i) systematic activity (ii) organized by co-operation between employer and employee (iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes.
(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful ob- : jective is irrelevant.
(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer- employee relations.
5. The maintenance of Regional/District Science Centres, the conduct of lectures, seminars, camps, research, exhibitions, the estabshment of planetarium and the other objects of the Museum need employees to participate in the conduct of the affairs of the museum. As the rules and regulations of the museum reveal, the Museum approves the annual budget of the Museum, creates posts, and lays down service conditions for the staff. Every activity of the museum needs employees. Therefore employees like the petitioner undoubtedly participate in the fulfilment of the objects of the Museum. The service that the Museum renders through education which it imparts, is a source of productive power. The knowledge acquired through the activities of the Museum leads to economic progress. Therefore what the Museum does is to provide services to the community. Since there are employees and a staffing pattern, it stands to reason that the production of services by the Museum involves co-operation between the Museum and its employees. The fact that the Museum is engaged in an activity which does not necessarily make profit does not alter the fact that it employs workers like the petitioner and carries on systematic activity which produces services. In my opinion, therefore, having regard to the tests laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. (supra), the museum is an industry as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. Is the Museum, State or “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? The majority of the members of the Governing body comprise of public servants or officers of the Government. Its budget requires approval of the Government Posts carrying salary of Rs. 1500 or more need Government’s sanction. Undoubtedly a vast and pervasive presence of the Government is clearly discernible. But does this by itself make it “State” or “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? While the Museum is established by the Government which provides funds, the Museum collects donations from other agencies too. In Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India and Ors. (1988-I-LLJ-341) and Chander Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Educational Research & Training and Ors. (1992-I-LLJ-331), the Supreme Court cautioned against turning every non-governmental society into an agency or instrumentality of the State without fair applications of the tests.
7. Three principles emerge from these judgment:
(i) Although, in a welfare State, State’s presence is inevitably and naturally all-pervasive, the principle of deep and pervasive presence of the State should not be applied without regard to the “realities and human experience.”
(Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India and Ors. (1988-I-LLJ-341)
(ii) The principle of State’s pervasive presence may be attracted in the case of registered societies, if the society like the 5 museum, has undertaken what “was expected to be the public obligation of the Government.”
(Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India and Ors. (1988-I-LLJ-341)
(iii) While the general tests like control of the Government, deep and pervasive presence of the Government, State protection, relation of the objects of the society with Governmental functions, are important tests, they are “by no means conclusive or clinching in any case.
(Chander Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Educational Research & Training and Ors. (1992-I-LLJ-331)
8. As in the case of Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) in this case too the Museum is a registered society. Applying the tests laid down in the judicial decisions cited above, the question is whether the museum has undertaken governmental business or any obligation which the State is expected to fulfil. The modern State cannot isolate itself from the activities which educate its people. By reason of its welfare character, the State is expected to promote scientific education through various agencies which, though guided and supported by the State, may not be instrumentalities of the State. Scientific literacy, promotion of scientific approach and dissemination of scientific knowledge are not primary functions of the State. The State has entered the field of dissemination of scientific knowledge because it is concerned with the progress of its people. This does not mean that every unit, body, society or agency which is substantially aided by government’s funds and personnel, constitutes “State” or other “authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or an “authority” within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The nature of the objects of the museum distinguishes it as an institution of promotion of scientific literacy. The element of Governmental function is absent in the objects. The business is carried on by the Board of Governors and is not governed by regulations made by the Government These realities must govern the application of the principle of pervasive presence of the Government. These realities of the governance of the Museum ake the activities of the museum out of the test of “public obligation of the Government.” Besides, experience shows that the societies which promote arts, science and cultural, though subject to the support and guidance of the Government, fulfil their objects independently of the governmental control. It is not right to identify every such society, as State or instrumentality of State or authority. The State no doubt helps in the promotion of the objects. But the objects of the museum are not a public obligation of the State but are matters of State’s concern for the welfare of its people. Upon consideration of the totality of the objects, and the nature of the Government’s interest in the museum, I hold that the museum is not “State” or “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. For the same reason it is not an “authority” within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. For the aforesaid reasons the respondent’s submission that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not competent, is well founded.
10. The petition is dismissed.