{"id":18959,"date":"1992-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992"},"modified":"2018-03-05T03:19:40","modified_gmt":"2018-03-04T21:49:40","slug":"coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992","title":{"rendered":"Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992<\/div>\n
Author: M S V.Manohar.J.<\/div>\n
Bench: Sujata V.Manohar, D.P. Wadhawa<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOIR BOARD, ERNAKULAM COCHIN & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nINDIRA DEVI P.S. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/03\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V.MANOHAR, D.P. WADHAWA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nMrs. Sujata V.Manohar.J.\n<\/p>\n
     In these  appeals from  a judgment of the Full Bench of
\nthe Kerala  High Court,\t we  have  to  examine\twhether\t the
\nappellant-Coir Board  is  an  industry\tas  defined  in\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act, 1947.\t The  appellant-Coir  Board,
\nErnakulam, Cochin,  had been set up under the Choir Industry
\nAct, 1953.  In the  Statement of Objects and Reasons for the
\nAct, it is scatted “(1) The Choir Industry has definite role
\nto play\t in our\t national  economy.  It\t is  of\t very  great
\neconomic  importance   to  Travancore  Cochin  where  it  is
\nconcentrated and  also, from  the point\t of view  of earning
\nforeign exchange,  of importance  to the  whole country.  It
\nhas, however,  been passing  through acute  depression since
\nthe middle  of 1952  as a  result of  the marked  decline in
\nexperts. With  a view  to controlling  production, improving
\nits quality,  weeding out  the undesirable  elements in\t the
\nexport trade  and developing  the internal  marked so  as to
\nreduce\tthe   industry’s  dependence   on  exports,   it  is
\nconsidered necessary  to establish  a Statutory Board on the
\nlines of Boards set up for other plantation industries.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  In  order  to\t finance  the  development  of\tthis
\nindustry it  is proposed  that a duty up to Rs. 1\/- per cwt.
\nshould be  levied on Choir biro, Choir yarn as well as Choir
\nmats and  matting exported…….”  The Preamble  to the Act
\nstates that it is an Act to provide for the establishment of
\na Board\t for the  development of  the Choir industry and for
\nthat purpose  to leave\ta customs duty on Choir fibre, Choir
\nyarn and  Choir products exported from India and for matters
\nconnected therewith.  Section 10  of the Choir Industry Act,
\n1953<\/span>
\nlays down the functions of the Board:-\n<\/p>\n
     Section 10:<\/p>\n
     “Functions of  the Board:-\t (1)  It
\n     shall be  the duty\t of he\tBoard to
\n     promote  by  such\tmeasures  as  it
\n     thinks fit\t the  development  under
\n     the   control    of   the\t Central
\n     Government of the Choir industry.
\n     (2)  Without   prejudice\tto   the
\n     generality\t of  the  provisions  of
\n     sub-sec. (1), the measures referred
\n     to therein may related to –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) promoting exports of Choir yarn
\n     and Choir products, and carrying on
\n     propaganda for that purpose:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)    regulating\t   under     the
\n     supervision    of\t  the\t Central
\n     Government the production of husks,
\n     Choir yarn\t and Choir  products  by
\n     registering  Choir\t  spindles   and
\n     looms   for   manufacturing   Choir
\n     products as  also\tmanufactures  of
\n     Choir products, licensing exporters
\n     of\t Choir,\t Choir\tyarn  and  Choir
\n     products  and   taking  such  other
\n     appropriate   steps   as\tmay   be
\n     prescribed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)   undertaking,\t  assisting   or
\n     encouraging\t     scientific,
\n     technological and economic research
\n     and maintaining  and  assisting  in
\n     the  maintenance  of  one\tor  more
\n     research institutes;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  collecting   statistics   from
\n     manufacturers of,\tand dealers  in,
\n     Choir products  and from such other
\n     persons as\t may be\t prescribed,  on
\n     any matter\t relating to  the  Choir
\n     industry;\t the\tpublication   of
\n     statistics so collected or portions
\n     thereof or extracts therefrom;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)  fixing   grade  standards  and
\n     arranging\t when\t necessary   for
\n     inspection of  Choir  fibre,  Choir
\n     yarn and Choir products;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f)  improving   the  marketing  of
\n     coconut husk,  Choir  fibre,  Choir
\n     yarn and  Choir products  in  India
\n     and elsewhere and preventing unfair
\n     competition:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ff) setting up or assisting in the
\n     setting up\t of  factories\tfor  the
\n     production of  Choir products  with
\n     the aid of power.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (g)     promoting\t    co-operative
\n     organization  among   producers  of
\n     husks, coir fibre and coir yarn and
\n     manufacturers of coir products:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (h) insuring  remunerative\t returns
\n     to producers  of husks,  coir fibre
\n     and coir  yarn and manufacturers of
\n     coir products;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i) licensing of resting places and
\n     warehouses and otherwise regulating
\n     the  stocking   and  sale\tof  coir
\n     fibre, coir  yarn and coir products
\n     both for  the internal  market  and
\n     for exports;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (j)   advising   on   all\t matters
\n     relating to  the development of the
\n     coir industry;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (k) such  other matters  as may  be
\n     prescribed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3) The  Board  shall  perform  its
\n     functions\tunder  this  section  in
\n     accordance with and subject to such
\n     rules as may be made by the Central
\n     Government.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     For the  purpose of  improving the\t marketing  of\tcoir
\nproducts and  for promoting  exports the  Coir Board,  inter
\nalia, maintains show rooms and sales depots. The function of
\nthe shirr  rooms is  to exhibit\t quality samples of coir and
\ncoir products,\tand make  intends for  products and, receive
\nconsignments from  manufacturers and\/or\t merchants  of\tcoir
\nproducts. The  products are  sold through the show rooms for
\nwhich the Coir Board charges a commission. The consignors of
\nsuch products  have to be registered with the Coir Board and
\nthese are  private co-operatives  of coir manufacturers. The
\nmarketing personnel in each of the slow rooms or sale depots
\nhelps in promoting their sale.\n<\/p>\n
     The Coir  Board had  employed certain  temporary clerks
\nand typists  who were  discharged.  They  claim\t that  their
\nservices could\tonly be\t terminated in\taccordance with\t the
\nprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.\n<\/p>\n
     A Full  Bench of  the Kerala High Court  considered the
\nquestion of  application of  the Industrial  Disputes Act to
\nthe appellant-Coir  Board  along  with\ta  similar  question
\nraised\tin   respect  of   a  large   number  of  Government
\nDepartments,   Government    Companies,\t  other\t   statutory
\ncorporations and  local bodies,\t in the\t impugned  judgment.
\nAfter extensively dealing with the various decisions of this
\nCourt on  what is an `industry’ and who is a `workman’ under
\nthe Industrial\tDisputes Act, the High Court has come to the
\nconclusion, inter  alia, that Coir Board is an `industry’ as
\ndefined in the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence Chapter V-A of
\nthe Industrial\tDisputes Act  would be applicable in respect
\nof termination\tof the\tservices of its temporary clerks and
\ntypists.\n<\/p>\n
     `Industry’ is defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act,  1947 as\t“any business,\ttrade,\tundertaking,
\nmanufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling
\nservice, employment  handicraft or  industrial occupation or
\navocation of  workmen”. The  term `employer’  is defined  in
\nSection 2(g) to mean “(f) in relation to an industry carried
\non by  or under\t the authority\tof  any\t department  of\t the
\nCentral Government  or a  State Government,  the   authority
\nprescribed in  this the\t department; (ff)  in relation to an
\nindustry carried  on by\t or on\tbehalf of a local authority,
\nthe chief  executive officer  of that  authority.” The\tterm
\n`workman’ in Section 2(s) is defined to mean “any person any
\nmanual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical
\nor supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
\nemployment be  express or  implied; and\t for the purposes of
\nany proceeding\tunder this  Act in relation to an industrial
\ndispute, includes  any such  person who\t has been dismissed,
\ndischarges, or\tretrenched  in\tconnection  with,  or  as  a
\nconsequence of,\t that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge
\nor retrenchment\t has led  to  that  dispute,  but  does\t not
\ninclude any such person……”\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, while  employer is  defined in  the contact of an
\nindustry and  the  workman  is\talso  defined  as  a  person
\nemployed in  any industry,  the term  `industry’ itself\t has
\nbeen  defined  to  mean\t business,  trade,  manufacture,  or
\ncalling’ are  fairly  clear,  the  term\t `undertaking  which
\naccompanies these  four words  has given  scope for judicial
\nexpansion of  the meaning  of the word `industry’. The words
\n`service, employment  and avocation  of workmen’  also being
\nsomewhat imprecise, like the word `undertaking’, have led to
\nvarying definitions  of `industry’  being given from time to
\ntime by\t judicial pronouncements when the courts were called
\nupon to\t decide whether any particular organisation could be
\nconsidered as an industry or not.\n<\/p>\n
     In one  of the  early cases  before  this\tCourt,\tD.N.
\nBanerji v.  P.R. Mukherjee (AIR<\/a> 1953 SC 58), a Bench of five
\njudges\tconsidered   the  question   whether   a   municipal
\ncorporation could  be considered  as  an  industry  and\t the
\ndispute of  its employees  with it could be considered as an
\nIndustrial dispute.  The Court\tobserved (para\t13) that the
\nwords `Industrial dispute’ convey the idea of a dispute that
\nwould affect   large  groups of workmen and employers ranged
\non opposite  sides, on\tsome general questions on which each
\ngroup is  bound together  by a community of interests – such
\nas wages,  bonus, allowance,  working hours  and so  on.  In
\nbranches of  work of a municipality analogous to carrying on
\nof a  trade or business, the dispute can be considered as an
\nIndustrial dispute. A similar view was taken  in the case of
\nthe The\t Corporation of\t the City of Nagpur v. Its Employees<\/a>
\n(1960 (2)  SCR 942).  In the  State of\tBombay & Ors. v. The
\nHospital Mazdoor  Sabha &  Ors. (AIR<\/a>  1960 SC  610) the word
\n`undertaking; in  the definition  of an industry was held to
\nconnote\t  an   activity\t  symptomatically   and\t  habitually
\nundertaken for\tproduction or  distribution of\tgoods or for
\nrendering material  services to\t the community at large or a
\npart of\t such community\t with the  help of employees. Profit
\nmotive was  considered as  not eleventh.  This\tview  of  an
\nindustry covered organisations which would not have normally
\nbeen considered\t as industries. But this Court observed that
\nthe conventional meaning of trade and business had lost some
\nits validity  for the  Industrial Disputes  Act which  was a
\nwelfare measure for the benefit of workers.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, by  eliminating  the\t purpose  of  an  industrial
\nactivity as  earning of\t profits or  income or\trecurs,\t the
\nCourt brought into the sweep of an industry, activities such
\nas charities, Government hospitals giving free medicines and
\nmedical\t care\tor  other   philanthropic  activities.\tEven
\nactivities such\t as eduction,  recreation, research  and the
\nlike that  benefit the\tcommunity as  a whole came under the
\nlabel of  `industry’.  In  fact,  by  considering  the\tterm
\n`undertaking’  in  this\t fashion,  all\tkinds  of  organised
\nactivities which  would ordinarily  not have been considered
\nas industries at all and which would not have been otherwise
\nconsidered as  industries even under the Industrial Disputes
\nAct were now `industries’ under the Industrial Disputes Act.
\nBecause if  we look  at the  language of  the definition  of
\n`industry’ in  the Industrial Disputes Act and interpret the
\nword `undertaking’  appearing along  with the  words `trade,
\nbusiness  and\tmanufacture  or\t calling’  by  applying\t the
\nprinciple of  notice a\tsocieties, `undertaking;  would cove
\nactivities similar  to trade, business, manufacture of goods
\ncalling, and not other kinds of activity.\n<\/p>\n
     However, the  same non-conventional  interpretation was
\nreiterated in  the case\t of The\t Workmen on Indian Standards
\nInstitution  v.\t  The\tManagement   of\t  Indian   Standards
\nInstitution (AIR<\/a>  1976 SC  145) by  saying that\t the  widest
\npossible connotation  should be given to the word `industry’
\nsince Industrial  Disputes Act was a welfare legislation for
\nthe  welfare   of  workers.   Therefore,  Indian   Standards
\nInstitution was held to be an industry.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  same, there  has been  another set\t of cases of
\nthis Court  and a number of High Court where a slightly more
\nrestricted and\tconventional meaning  has been given top the
\nterm `industry’\t as defined  in he  Industrial Disputes Act.
\nFor example,  in National  Union of  Commercial Employees  &
\nAnr. v.\t M.R. Meher, Industrial Tribunal, Bombay & Ors, (AIR<\/a>
\n1962 SC\t 1080) the  case of  State  of\tBombay\tv.  Hospital
\nMazdoor Sabha<\/a> (supra) was distinguished and it was held that
\na liberal  profession such  as that of an attorney was to an
\nindustry  because  that\t attorney  does\t not  carry  on\t his
\nprofession with the active co-operation of his employees. He
\nbrings to  bear his  intellectual equipment  on the  work he
\ndoes. Similarly\t in the case of University of Delhi and Anr.
\nv. Ram\tNath and  Ors.<\/a> ([1963]\t2 L.L.J. 335) this Court had
\nheld that an educational institution was not an industry.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  case of  the Secretary,  Madras  Gymkhana\tClub
\nEmployees’ Union v. The Management of the Gymkhana Club (AIR<\/a>
\n1968 SC\t 554) this  Court held\tthat  every  activity  which
\ninvolves the relationship of an employer and employee is not
\nnecessarily an\tindustry. After\t examining the vast range of
\nhuman activities,  this Court  held that  in an industry co-
\noperation between employers and employees was with a view to
\nproduction and\tdistribution of\t material goods\t or material
\nservices. A  club was not an industry since its services wee
\nto  the\t members  themselves  for  their  own  pleasure\t and
\namusement and material goods were for their own consumption.
\nIt was\ta self-serving organisation and was not an industry.
\nFollowing the same judgment, in the Cricket Club of India v.
\nBombay Labour  Union and Anr. (AIR<\/a> 1969 SC 276), the Cricket
\nClub of India was held not to be an industry.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  next year,\t in the\t case of  The Management  of
\nSafdar Jung  Hospital, New  Delhi v. Kuldip Singh Sethi (AIR<\/a>
\n1940  SC   1407)  a  Bench  of\tsix  judges  of\t this  Court
\nunanimously followed the ratio of the Madras Gymkhana Club’s
\ncase (supra)  and held that the Safdar Jung Hospital was not
\nan industry.  In the case of Safdar Jung Hospital (supra), a
\nBench of  six judges  unanimously held\tthat an\t industry as
\ndefined\t in  Section  2(j)  exists  only  when\tthere  is  a
\nrelationship of\t employers and employees, the former engaged
\nin business,  trade, undertaking,  manufacture or calling of
\nemployers and  the latter  engaged in  any calling  service,
\nemployment,   handicraft   or\tindustrial   occupation\t  or
\navocation. There  must, therefore, be an enterprise in which
\nthe employers  follow their  avocation as  detailed  in\t the
\ndefinition  and\t  employ  workmen  who\tfollow\tone  of\t the
\navocations  detailed   for  workmen.   But  every   case  of
\nemployment is  not necessarily\tproductive of  an  industry.
\nDomestic  employment,\tadministrative\tservice\t  of  public
\nofficials, service in aid of occupations of professional men
\nalso disclose  relationship of\temployers and  employees but
\nthey cannot  be regarded  as in\t the course  of industry. It
\nmust bear  the definite\t character of  trade or\t business or
\nmanufacture or calling or must be capable of being described
\nas an  undertaking resulting  in material  goods or material
\nservices. If  a hospital,  nursing home or dispensary is run
\nas a  business in  a  commercial  was  there  may  be  found
\nelemental of  an industry there. Hospitals run by Government
\nand even by provide associations not on commercial lines but
\non  charitable\tlines,\tor  as\tpart  of  the  functions  of
\nGovernment Debatement  of Health  cannot be  included in the
\ndefinition of  industry. The  first and\t second parts of the
\ndefinition ar  not to  be read\tin isolation as if they were
\ndifferent industries  but only\tas aspects of the occupation
\nof employers  and employees  in an  industry.  The  are\t two
\ncounterparts in one industry.\n<\/p>\n
     The same  position had  been earlier  reiterated  by  a
\nthree judge  Bench of  this Court  in  the  case  of  Madras
\nGymkhana Club  (supra) where also this Court had interpreted
\nthe definition\tof industry  as being  in two  parts. In its
\nfirst  part,  it  means\t any  business,\t trade,\t undertaking
\nmanufacture or\tcalling\t of  employers.\t This  part  of\t the
\ndefinition determines an industry by reference to occupation
\nof  employers\tn  respect   of\t certain  activities.  There
\nactivities are\tspecified by  five words  and they determine
\nwhat  an   industry  is\t and  what  the\t connote  expression
\n“industrial” is\t intended to  convey. The  second part views
\nthe matter  from the  angle of\temployees and is designed to
\ninclude something  more in  what the term primarily denotes.
\nBy the\tsecond part of the definition, any calling, service,
\nemployment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation
\nof workmen  is included\t in the concept of an industry. This
\npart gives  the extended  connotation. This  Court also said
\nthat the  word `undertaking’ must be defined as any business
\nor any\twork or\t project which one engages in or attempts as
\nan enterprise  analogous to  business or  trade. It  did not
\naccept as  correct the\textension of  the definition as laid
\ndown in\t The  Corporation  of  the  City  of  Nagpur  v\t Its
\nemployees (supra).\n<\/p>\n
     However, this  view which was reaffirmed in Safdar Jung
\nHospital’s case (supra), by a decision of six judges of this
\nCourt, as  well as  the University  of Delhi’s\tcase (supra)
\nwere overruled\tin 1978\t by a  decision of  a Bench of seven
\njudges of this Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply &
\nSewerage Board\tetc. v.\t A.Rajappa & Ors. etc. ([1978] 2 SCC\n<\/p>\n
213) by a majority of five with two dissenting.\n<\/p>\n
     The  definition   of  industry   under  the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act  was held\tto  cover  all\tprofessions,  clubs,
\neducational    institutions,\t co-operatives,\t    research
\ninstitutions, charitable  projects and\tanything else  which
\ncould be looked upon as organised activity where there was a
\nrelationship  of   employer  and  employee  and\t goods\twere
\nproduced or  service was rendered. Even in the case of local
\nbodies and  administrative organisations the court evolved a
\n`predominant activity’ test so that whenever the predominant
\nactivity  could\t  be  covered  by  the\twide  scope  of\t the
\ndefinition as propounded by the court, the local body or the
\norganisation would  be considered  as an  industry. Even  in
\nthose cases  where the\tpredominant activity could not be so
\nclassified, the\t court included\t in the definition all those
\nactivities of  that organisation  which could be so included
\nas industry,  departing from  its own  earlier test that one
\nhad to\tgo by  the predominant\tnature of  the activity.  In
\nfact, Chandrachud,  J. (as he then was) observed that even a
\ndefence establishment  or a  mint or a security press could,
\nin  a  giver  case,  be\t considered  as\t an  industry.\tVery
\nrestricted exemptions  were given  from\t the  all  embracing
\nscope of the definition so propounded. For example, pious or
\nreligious missions  were considered  exempt even  if  a\t few
\nservants were  hired to help the devotees. Where normally no
\nemployees were\thired but  the employment  was marginal\t the
\norganisation would  not qualify\t as an\tindustry.  Sovereign
\nfunctions of  the State\t as traditionally  understood  would
\nalso  not   be\tcalcified   as\tindustry  though  Government
\ndepartments which  could be  served and labelled as industry
\nwould not escape the Industrial Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The majority  laid down  the `dominant nature’ test for
\ndeciding whether  the establishment  is an  industry or\t not
\n(see paragraph 143, Krishna Iyer, J.):\n<\/p>\n
     “Para  143:   The\tdominant  nature
\n     test:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)   Where    a\t complaint    of
\n     activities, some  of which\t qualify
\n     for exemption, others not, involves
\n     employees\t   of\t   the\t   total
\n     undertakings, some\t of whom are not
\n     `workmen’ as  in the  University of
\n     Delhi   case    (supra)   or   some
\n     departments are  not productive  of
\n     goods  and\t services  if  isolated,
\n     even then,\t the predominant  nature
\n     of the  services and the integrated
\n     nature  of\t  the\tdepartments   as
\n     explained\tin  the\t Corporation  of
\n     Nagpur whole  undertaking\twill  be
\n     `industry’ although  those who  are
\n     not  `workman’  by\t definition  may
\n     not, benefit by the status.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  Notwithstanding  the\tprevious
\n     clauses,\t sovereign    functions,
\n     strictly understood,  alone qualify
\n     for  exemption,   not  the\t welfare
\n     activities\t or  economic  adventure
\n     undertaken\t by  the  government  or
\n     statutory bodies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) Even in departments discharging
\n     sovereign functions,  if there  are
\n     units which are industries and they
\n     are substantially\tseverable,  then
\n     they  can\tbe  considered\tto  come
\n     within Section 2(j).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d) Constitutional\t and competently
\n     enacted legislative  provisions may
\n     well remove  from the  scope of the
\n     Act categories  which otherwise may
\n     be covered thereby.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Two judges\t dissented from\t this view.  They said\tthat
\nbearing\t in  mind  the\tcollocation  of\t terms\tin  which  a
\ndefinition is  couched and applying the doctrine of notice a
\nsocials as  pointed out in the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha’s case
\n(supra), when  two or  more words  are coupled together they
\nhave to\t be understood\tas being used in their cognate sense
\ntaking their  color from  each other.  Meaning of a doubtful
\nword may  be ascertained  by reference to the meaning of the
\nwords associated with it. Therefore, desire the width of the
\ndefinition of  `industry’ in  Section 2(j) it could not have
\nbeen the  intention of the legislature that hospitals run on
\ncharitable basis  or as\t a part\t of  the  functions  of\t the
\nGovernment of  local bodies like musicalities, and education
\nand research institutions whether run by private entities or
\nby Government,\tand liberal  and  learned  professions\tlike
\ndoctors, lawyers etc, the pursuit of which is dependent upon
\nthe individual’s own education, intellectual attainments and
\nspecial expertise,  should  fall  within  the  pale  of\t the
\ndefinition. There  were of  he view  that the  definition is
\nlimited to  those activities  systematically  or  habitually
\nundertaken on commercial lines by private entrepreneurs with
\nthe  co-operation   of\temployees   for\t the  production  or
\ndistribution of\t goods or  for rendering material service to
\nthe community  at large\t or a  part of\tsuch community. They
\nobserved that this Court had also in previous decisions felt
\nthe necessity  of  excluding  some  callings,  services\t and
\nundertakings from  the purviews\t of the definition. Even the
\nvariety was  of\t the  view  that  legislative  exercise\t was
\nnecessary to settle the position.\n<\/p>\n
     The subsequent  decisions of  this Court have left some
\nuncertainty on\tthe question of activities and organisations
\nthat can  be labelled  as industries  under  the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act.  To take\tonly a few recent cases, in the case
\nof Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G. Sharma<\/a> ([1997] 4 SCC\n<\/p>\n
257)  this   Court,  after   discussing\t the  definition  of
\nindustry as  propounded in  the Bangalore  Water Supply Case
\n(supra) and  other cases  ultimately came  to the conclusion
\nthat a Physical Research Laboratory was to an industry. This
\nCourt emphasised  that the  principles which were formulated
\nin the\tBangalore Water\t Supply Case (supra) and other cases
\nultimately came\t to the\t conclusion that a Physical Research
\nLaboratory was\tnot an\tindustry. This Court emphasised that
\nthe principles\twhich were formulated in the Bangalore Water
\nSupply Case  (supra) were  formulated in  because this Court
\nfound  the   definition\t of    the  word  `industry’  vague.
\nTherefore, while applying the `traditional’ test approved by
\nthis Court  in the  Bangalore Water Supply’s Case (supra) to
\ndetermine what\tcan be\tregarded as sovereign functions of a
\nconstitutional Government  which involved  varied  functions
\nhad to\tbe kept in mind. The activity of a Physical Research
\nLaboratory would  not be  covered by  the definition  of  an
\nindustry under Industrial Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In an  earlier Judgment  in the  case of Sub-Divisional
\nInspector of  Post, Vaikam  & Ors.  V. Theyyam Joseph & Ors.<\/a>
\n([1996] 8  SCC 489), the establishment of the Sub-Divisional
\nInspector of  Post was\theld not to be an industry but as an
\nexercise of  a showering  function. In\tthe case  of  Bombay
\nTelephone   Canteen   Employees’   Association,\t  Prabhadevi
\nTelephone Exchange  v. Union  of India\t& Anr.<\/a> ([1997] 6 SCC\n<\/p>\n
723), this  Court, after  examining the\t case law, held that
\nworkmen employed  in the  departmental canteen\tof Telephone
\nNigam Limited  and admittedly  holding civil  posts were not
\nworkmen within\tthe meaning  of the Industrial Disputes Act.
\nHowever, a  Bench of  three judges  of this  Court in  Civil
\nAppeal NO:  7845 of  1779, General  Manager, Telecom  v.  S,
\nSrinivasa Sub-Divisional  Inspector of Post<\/a> (supra) were not
\ncorrectly decided  in view of the ratio laid down by a Bench
\nof seven judges of this Court in the case of Bangalore water
\nSupply and Sewerage Board (supra).\n<\/p>\n
     Looking to\t the uncertainty prevailing in this area and
\nin the\tlight of  the experience of the last two  decades in
\napplying the  test laid\t down in the case of Bangalore Water
\nSupply and  Sewerage Board  (supra) it is necessary that the
\ndecision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board’s case
\n(supra) is  re-examined. The  experience  of  the  last\t two
\ndecades down  not appear  to be\t entirely happy.  Instead of
\nleading to  industrial peace  and welfare  of the  community
\n(which was  the avowed purpose of artificially extending the
\ndefinition of  industry), the  application of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act  to organisations\twhich were,  quite possibly,
\nnot intended  to be so covered by the machinery set up under
\nthe Industrial\tDisputes Act,  might have  done more  damage
\nthan good,  not merely\tto the\torganisations  but  also  to
\nemployees by the curtailment of employment opportunities.\n<\/p>\n
     Undoubtedly, it  is of  paramount importance  that\t   a
\nproper law  is framed  to  promote  the\t welfare  of  labour
\nemployed in  industries. It  is equally\t important that\t the
\nwelfare of  labour employed  in other kinds of organisations
\nis also\t promoted and  protected. But  the kind\t of measures
\nwhich may  be different, and may have to be tailored to suit
\nthe nature  of such  organisations, their infrastructure and
\ntheir  financial   capacity  as\t also  the  needs  of  their
\nemployees.\n<\/p>\n
     The  elimination  of  profit  motive  or  a  desire  to
\ngenerate income\t as the\t propose of  industrial activity has
\nled to\ta  large  number  of  philanthropic  and  charitable
\nactivities being  affected the Industrial Disputes Act. In a
\nnumber of  causes where the organisation is run by voluntary
\nsocial\tworkers,   they\t are   unable  to   cope  with\t the
\nrequirements of\t Industrial  Disputes  Act.,  This  has\t the
\nrequirement of\tIndustrial Disputes  Act. This\thas led to a
\ncessation of  many welfare  activities previously undertaken
\nby  such   organisations  which\t has  deprived\tthe  general
\ncommunity of considerable benefit and the employees of their
\nlivelihood. There  are many  activities which are undertaken
\nnot with a view to secure any monetary returns – whether one
\nlabels it  as livelihood,  income or  profit, but  for other
\nmore gandered  or different  motives. Such  activities would
\nnot normally  be labelled  as Industrial activities, but for
\nthe  wide   interpretation  given  judicially  to  the\tterm
\n`industry’ in  the Industrial  Disputers Act. For example, a
\nnumber of  voluntary organisations  used to run workshops in
\norder that the poor, and more particularly poor or destitute
\nwomen may  earn some income. Voluntary welfare organisations
\norganised activities  like preparation\tof species,  nasals,
\npickles or  they would\tsecure small  orders from industries
\nfor poor  women. A  small number of persons were employed to
\nassist in  the activities.  The income\tearned\tby  the\t see
\nactivities was\tdistributed to the women who were given such
\nwork.\tOther voluntary organisations organised tailoring or
\nembroidery classes  or similar activities for poor women and
\nprovided an  outlet for\t the sale  of the  work produced  by
\nthem. These persons would otherwise have found it impossible
\nto secure  a market  for their\tproducts. Such organisations
\nare not\t organised like\t industries and they do not have the
\nmeans or  manpower to run them as industries. A large number
\nof such\t voluntary welfare  schemes have had to be abandoned
\nbecause\t of  the  wide\tinterpretation\tgiven  to  the\tterm
\nindustry.\n<\/p>\n
     Apart  form   such\t activities,   there  may  be  other
\nactivities also\t which\tare  undertaken\t in  the  spirit  of
\ncommunity service,  such as  charitable hospitals where free
\nmedical services  and free  medicines may  be provided. Such
\nactivities many\t be sustained  by free\tservices,  given  by
\nprofessional men  and women and by donations. Sometimes such
\nactivities may be sustained by using the profits in the paid
\nsection of  that activity  for provided free services in the
\nfree section.  Doctors who  work in these hospitals may work
\nfor  no\t  returns  or\tsometimes  for\tvery  nominal  fees.
\nFortunately, philanthropic instinct is far from extinct. Can
\nsuch philanthropic  organisations be  called industries? The
\ndefinition needs  re-examination so  that, while the workers
\nin an  industry have  the benefit of industrial legislation,
\nthe community  as such\tis not deprived of philanthropic and
\nother vital  services which  contribute so much to its well-
\nbeing. Educational services and the work done by teachers in
\neducational    institutions,\t research     organisations,
\nprofessional activities, or recreational activities, amateur
\nsports, promotion  of arts  – fine arts and performing arts,
\npromoting crafts  and special  skills, all  these  and\tmany
\nother similar  activities also\trequire to  be considered in
\nthis context.\n<\/p>\n
     In fact,  in 1982,\t the Legislature  itself decided  to
\namend the  definition of  `industry’  under  the  Industrial
\nDisputes ACT,  1974 by enacting the Amending Act 46 of 1982.
\nIn the\tStatement of  Objects and  Reasons for\tthe Amending
\nAct 46 of 1982, Clause 2 expressly refers to the decision of
\nthis Court  in Bangalore  water Supply\tand  Sewerage  Board
\n(Supra) and  the wide interpretation given to the definition
\nof the\tterm industry  in the  Industrial Disputes  Act. The
\nStatement of  Objects and  Reasons states,  inter  alia,  as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
     “The Supreme  Court in its decision
\n     in the  Bangalore Water  Supply and
\n     Severage Board  v. Rajappa,<\/a> [(1978)
\n     2 SCC  213; 1978  SCC (L & S) 215 :
\n     AIR  1978\t SC  548]   had,   while
\n     interpreting  the\t definition   of
\n     “industry”\t as  contained\tinto  he
\n     Act, observed that Government might
\n     restructure  this\t definition   by
\n     suitable legislative  measures.  It
\n     is accordingly proposed to redefine
\n     the term  “industry”.  While  doing
\n     so, it  is proposed to exclude from
\n     the  scope\t  of  this   expression,
\n     certain institutions like hospitals
\n     and   dispensaries,    educational,
\n     scientific,  research  or\ttraining
\n     institutes, institutions engaged in
\n     charitable,       social\t     and
\n     philanthropic  services   etc.,  in
\n     view of  the need\tto  maintain  in
\n     such  institutions\t an  atmospheres
\n     different from  that in  industrial
\n     undertaking and to meet the special
\n     needs of such organisations., It is
\n     also proposed  to exclude sovereign
\n     functions of  Government  including
\n     activities\t  relating   to\t  atomic
\n     energy, space  and defence research
\n     from  the\t purview  of   the  term
\n     “industry”.  However,   keeping  in
\n     view the special characteristics of
\n     these activities  and the fact that
\n     their workmen also need protection,
\n     it is  proposed to\t have a separate
\n     law   for\t  the\tsettlement    of
\n     individual grievances  as\twell  as
\n     collective disputes  in respect  of
\n     the workmen  of these institutions.
\n     All  these\t have  been  taken  into
\n     account and the term “industry” has
\n     been  made\t  more\tspecific   while
\n     making the coverage wider……”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Unfortunately,  despite  the  legislative\tmandate\t the
\ndefinitions not\t been notified\tby the\tExecutive as  having
\ncome into force.\n<\/p>\n
     Since the difficulty has arisen because of the judicial
\ninterpretation given  to the definition of `industry’ in the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act, there\t is no reason why the matter
\nshould not  be judicially  re-examined. In the present case,
\nthe function  of the Coir Board is to promote coir industry,
\nopen markets  for it  and provide  facilities to  make\tcoir
\nindustry’s products more marketable. It is not set up to run
\nany industry  itself. Looking to the predominant purpose for
\nwhich it  is set  up we\t would\tnot  call  it  an  industry.
\nHowever, if  one were  to  apply  the  tests  laid  down  by
\nBangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board’s case (supra), it
\nis an  organization where there are employers and employees.
\nThe organization  does some  useful work  for the benefit of
\nothers. Therefore,  it will  have to  be called\t an industry
\nunder the Industrial Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t do   not  think  that\tsuch  a\t sweeping  test\t was
\ncontemplated by the Industries Disputes Act, nor do we think
\nthat  every  organization  which  does\tuseful\tservice\t and
\nemploys people\tcan be\tlabelled as industry. We, therefore,
\ndirect that  the matter\t be placed  before the\tHon’ble\t the
\nChief Justice  of India\t to consider  whether a larger Bench
\nshould be  constituted to  re-consider the  decision of this
\nCourt in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992 Author: M S V.Manohar.J. Bench: Sujata V.Manohar, D.P. Wadhawa PETITIONER: COIR BOARD, ERNAKULAM COCHIN & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: INDIRA DEVI P.S. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/03\/1992 BENCH: SUJATA V.MANOHAR, D.P. WADHAWA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCoir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1992-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-04T21:49:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T21:49:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992\"},\"wordCount\":5035,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992\",\"name\":\"Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T21:49:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-04T21:49:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992","datePublished":"1992-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T21:49:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992"},"wordCount":5035,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992","name":"Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T21:49:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coir-board-ernakulam-cochin-anr-vs-indira-devi-p-s-ors-on-4-march-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18959","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18959"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18959\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}