{"id":53900,"date":"1985-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985"},"modified":"2018-06-18T15:19:14","modified_gmt":"2018-06-18T09:49:14","slug":"gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985","title":{"rendered":"Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, … on 19 August, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, … on 19 August, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 504, \t\t 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 641<\/div>\n
Author: V Khalid<\/div>\n
Bench: Khalid, V. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGOPAL.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MADHYA PRADESH KHADI AND VILLAGE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/08\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nKHALID, V. (J)\nBENCH:\nKHALID, V. (J)\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1986 AIR  504\t\t  1985 SCR  Supl. (2) 641\n 1985 SCC  (4) 138\t  1985 SCALE  (2)324\n\n\nACT:\n     Labour and\t Service -  Industrial Disputes\t Act, 1947 -\nM.P. Industrial\t Relations Act,\t 1960 - S. 2 (19) and (33) -\nM.P. Khadi  and Village Industries Act, 1959 - S. 14 - Khadi\nand  Village  Industries  Board\t -  Whether  \"Industry\"\t and\n\"Undertaking\"- Applicability  of Notification No. 9952 - XVI\ndt. 31st December, 1960.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  appellant   was  appointed  as  Store\t Keeper-cum-\nAccountant in  one of  the branches  of the  Madhya  Pradesh\nKhadi  and   Village  Industries  Board,  a  body  corporate\nconstituted under the M.P. Khadi and Village Industries Act,\n1959.  His  services  were  terminated\tby  an\tOrder  dated\n23.9.1964 after giving one month's notice.\n     The termination  Was challenged before the Labour Court\nas amounting  to retrenchment  because it  hat\tbeen  passed\nwithout complying  with provisions  of the  M.P.  Industrial\nRelations Act,\t1960, the charge sheet that was given to him\non 27.4.1964  was based on false and baseless grounds and no\nenquiry was  held prior\t to removal.  The appellant  claimed\nreinstatement  with   full  wages.   The  Respondent   Board\ncontested the  application contending that the Board was not\nan industry  and that  neither the M.P. Industrial Relations\nAct, 1960  nor the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applied to\nit.\n     The Labour\t Court held  that  the\ttermination  of\t the\nservices of  the appellant  amounted  to  retrenchment,\t set\naside the  Order of  termination and  directed reinstatement\nwith  half   salary  from   the\t date\tof  the\t Order\ttill\nreinstatement.\n     The Board\tpreferred a  revision. The  Industrial Court\naffirm- ed  the order  of the Labour Court and dismissed the\nrevision petition.\n642\n     The Board\tfiled a petition under Art. 225 and 227. The\nHigh Court  allowed the\t writ petition, quashed the order of\nthe Industrial\tCourt and  remitted the case to it to decide\nthe facts  afresh. The\tIndustrial Court  after taking fresh\nevidence, again held in favour of the appellant, reaffirming\nits previous decision to reinstate the appellant.\n     The Board\tagain moved  the High Court, which set aside\nthe orders  of the  Industrial Court and the Labour Court on\nthe  ground   that  they  acted\t without  jurisdiction.\t The\nappellant appealed  to this  Court by  certificate which was\nresisted by  the Board on two grounds: (i) that it is not an\nindustry within the meaning of the Act and (ii) that it does\nnot employ more than 100 persons.\n     Allowing the appeal of the appellant-employee,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The order  passed by  the High  Court is\t set\naside and  that of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court\nare restored. [651 B-C]\n     2.\t The  M.P.  Industrial\tRelations  Act,\t 1960  is  a\nseparate Act  in the State of Madhya Pradesh to regulate the\nrelations  of\temployees  in\tcertain\t matters  and  makes\nprovisions  for\t  settlement  of  Industrial  disputes.\t Any\nconcern,  to   become  an   industry,  has  to\tsatisfy\t the\ndefinitions of \"industry\"  and \"undertaking\" as contained in\nss. 2(19)  and 2(33)  thereof. Such concerns have to satisfy\nyet another  condition to attract the provisions of the said\nAct which relates to the number of the employees the concern\nemploys. Notification\tNo.  9952 XVI  dated 31st  December,\n1960 issued  under sub\t8. (3) of 8. 1 of the Act, makes the\nprovisions of  the Act\tapplicable only to an undertaking in\nthe industries\tspecified in the Schedule wherein the number\nof the employees on any date during Twelve months preceeding\nor on the date of the notification or any day thereafter was\nor is  more than  one hundred.\tIn  the\t instant  case,\t the\nevidence on  record  admits  of\t no  doubt  that  the  Board\nemployed more than 100 persons. [645 A-H; 646 A-4; 647 C]\n     3. One of the functions of the Board under 8. 14 of the\nM.P. Khadi  and Village\t Industries Act 1959 is \"to support,\nencourage, assist  and carry on Khadi and Village Industries\nand in\tthe matters  incidental to  such trade or business\".\nThe evidence  shows that  the Board supplies raw wool to Co-\noperative Societies, so\n643\nthat the Societies can engage themselves in useful work. The\nSociety after  weaving raw  wool,  convert  them  into\tspun\nblankets and  supply them to the Board. The blankets so spun\nare not\t the properties\t of the\t Societies. They  have to be\ngiven back  to the  Board. The\tblankets  so  supplied\tfrom\nvarious centres to the Board, have necessarily to be sold in\nthe open  market. This act of sale would clearly come within\nthe  definition\t  of  the  word\t 'trade'  or  'business'  as\ncontemplated in Section 2(19) of the Act. m e conclusion is,\ntherefore, irresistible that the Board engages itself in the\nbusiness of  selling blankets. It has, therefore, to be held\nthat the  Board is  an 'industry'  within the meaning of the\nAct. [650 B-D; 651 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 617 (NL)
\nof 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  4.12.1973  of\t the
\nMadhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 713 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     M.K. Ramamurthy,  Vineet Kumar  and N.D.V. Raju for the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     G.B. Pai,\tS.K.  Gambhir,\tAshok  Mahajan\tand  Ms.  S.
\nKirpalani for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KHALID, J.\t This is an appeal by certificate, issued by
\nthe High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 133(1) of the
\nConstitution of\t India against\tthe Judgment  of a  Division
\nBench of  that Court  setting aside  the Order passed by the
\nLabour\tCourt,\t Ujjain,  confirmed   in  revision   by\t the
\nIndustrial Court,  Madhya Pradesh,  allowing an\t application
\nfiled by  the appellant\t under\tSection\t 31  of\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred
\nto as  the Act)\t in which  he had challenged his termination
\nwhich challenge\t was  accepted\tand  his  reinstatement\t was
\nordered. The  facts in brief, necessary for disposal of this
\nappeal are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     2. The  appellant was  appointed as  Store\t Keeper\t Cum
\nAccountant on  14.2.1957, in  the Madhya  Pradesh Khadi\t and
\nVillage Industries  Board, Budhwara, Bhopal. This Board is a
\nbody corporate\tconstituted under the M.P. Khadi and Village
\nIndustries  Act\t  1959\tand  is\t engaged  among\t others,  in
\nactivities of  encouraging production  of Khadi\t and helping
\nother village industries. It has
\n644<\/span>
\ndifferent branches  in the State of Madhya Pradesh. One such
\ncentre was  established at Berdi in Chhindwara district. The
\nBoard supplied\traw wool  to the  Co-optative Societies\t and
\nafter getting  them woven  by the  societies into  blankets,
\nreceived back  blankets as  finished goods.  m e services of
\nthe appellant  were terminated as per Order dated 23.9.1964,
\nafter giving one month’s notice. He challenged this Order of
\ntermination as\tone amounting  to retrenchment,\t and  having
\nbeen passed without complying with the provisions of the Act
\nthat govern  his relationship with the Board. He stated that
\na charge sheet was given to him on 27.4.1964, based on false
\nand baseless grounds and that there was no enquiry held into
\nthe said charges before his removal. The appellant thereupon
\nmoved the  Labour Court\t at  Ujjain  on\t 7.6.1975,  for\t his
\nreinstatement with full wages.\n<\/p>\n
     The Board\tcontested the  application contending  inter
\nalia that the Board was not an industry and that neither the
\nM.P. Industrial\t Relations  Act,  1960\tnor  the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act,  1947 applied  to it. The Labour Court, Ujjain
\nframed necessary  issues on  the rival contentions and after
\nrecording  evidence,   held  that  the\ttermination  of\t the
\nappellant amounted  to retrenchment,  set aside the Order of
\ntermination and\t directed the  Board to\t reinstate him\twith
\nhalf salary front the date of the Order till reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Aggrieved  by  this  Order  the\t Board\tpreferred  a
\nrevision before\t the Industrial\t Court\tin  Madhya  Pradesh,
\nIndore, repeating  the contentions  raised before the Labour
\nCourt. m  e Industrial\tCourt by  its order  dated 3.2.1967,
\naffirmed the  order of\tthe Labour  Court and  dismissed the
\nrevision petition.\n<\/p>\n
      5.  The Board pursued the matter further by moving the
\nMadhya Pradesh\tHigh Court  by a  petition under Article 226
\nand 227\t of the Constitution of India. The High Court by its
\norder dated  19.12.1969, allowed  the Writ Petition, quashed
\nthe order  of the  Industrial Court and remitted the case to
\nit to  decide the  facts  afresh  with\tdue  regard  to\t the
\nrelevant provisions  of the  M.P. Industrial  Relations Act,
\n1960. After remand, the Industrial Court proceeded to decide
\nthe question  itself after  taking fresh  evidence and again
\nheld in\t favour of  the appellant  and\tagainst\t the  Board,
\nreaffirming  its   previous  decision\tto   reinstate\t the
\nappellant. The\tmatter was  taken to the High Court again by
\nthe Board  by means  of a  Writ Petition. The High Court set
\naside the  orders of  the Industrial  Court and\t the  Labour
\nCourt, on  the ground  that they acted without jurisdiction.
\nHowever, since the
\n645<\/span>
\nHigh Court  felt that the matter was not free from doubt and
\nwas debatable,\tgranted\t certificate  to  the  appellant  to
\nappeal to  this Court.\tIt is thus that the matter is before
\nus.\n<\/p>\n
     6. In  the State  of Madhya Pradesh there is a separate
\nAct to\tregulate  the  relations  of  employees\t in  certain
\nmatters and  to make provisions for settlement of industrial
\ndisputes and  other connected matters. mis Act is called the
\nMadhya Pradesh\tIndustrial Relations  Act, 1960.  Section  2
\n(19) defines Industry as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Industry means\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) any  business, trade, manufacture, undertaking
\n\t  or calling of employers;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) any  calling, service,  employment, handicraft
\n\t  or  industrial   occupation  or   a  vocation\t  of
\n\t  employees; and Includes\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i) agriculture and agricultural operations;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) any  branch  of\tany  industry  or  group  of
\n\t  industries which  the\t State\tGovernment  may,  by
\n\t  notification, declare\t to be\tan industry  for the
\n\t  purposes of this Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 2 (33) defines undertaking as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Undertaking means a concern in any industry .
\n     Thus, any\tconcern,  to  become  an  industry,  has  to
\nsatisfy the  above definitions\tto attract the Provisions of
\nthe Act.  Such concerns have to satisfy another condition to
\nattract the  provisions of  the Act  and that  is about\t the
\nnumber of employees the concern employs. This is provided in
\na Notification issued under the Act which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  No. 9952 – XVI, dated 31st December, 1960.
\n\t  In exercise  of  the\tpowers\tconferred  by  `Sub-
\n\t  Section (3)  of Section  1 of\t the Madhya  Pradesh
\n\t  Industrial Relations\tAct 1960  (No. 27  of 1960),
\n\t  the State  Government hereby\tdirects that all the
\n\t  provisions of\t the said  Act other  than section 1
\n\t  and 112 thereof shall be into
\n646<\/span>
\n\t  force\t on  31st  December,  1960,  in\t respect  of
\n\t  undertaking in  the industries  specified  in\t the
\n\t  schedule below  wherein the number of employees on
\n\t  any date  during twelve months preceding or on the
\n\t  date of  this notification  or any  day thereafter
\n\t  was or is more than one hundred :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  SCHEDULE\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  1.   Textile including  cotton,  silk,  artificial
\n\t  silk staple fibre, jute and carpet.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  2.  …………………………………
\n\t      …………………………………
\n\t      ………………………………..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This notification,\t thus, makes  the provisions  of the
\nAct  applicable\t  only\tto  undertaking\t in  the  industries
\nspecified in the schedule, where the number of employees, on
\nthe date  mentioned therein was or is more than 100.  We are
\nconcerned here\tonly with  item No.  1 in  the schedule\t and
\ntherefore, have left out the other items.\n<\/p>\n
     7. Before\tconsidering  the  rival\t contentions  raised
\nbefore us,  we may  extract the relevant sections of the Act
\nunder which  the Board\twas constituted,  to understand\t the
\nfunctions and  duties of  the Board.  For our  purpose it is
\nenough to  quote Sections  14 (1) & 14 (2) (a) alone, Clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) to\t(m) are\t not necessary\tfor the\t resolution  of\t the
\ndispute involved in this case and hence are omitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “14. Functions of Board.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1) It shall be the duty of the Board to organise,
\n\t  develop and  regulate Khadi and Village Industries
\n\t  and\t  perform  such\t  functions  as\t  the  State
\n\t  Government may prescribe.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2) Without  prejudice to  the generality  of\t the
\n\t  provisions of\t the sub section (1) the Board shall
\n\t  also in  particular discharge\t and perform  all or
\n\t  any of the following duties and functions namely;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) To start, encourage, assist and carry on Khadi
\n\t  and  Village\t Industries  and   in  the   matters
\n\t  incidental to such trade or business.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
647<\/span><\/p>\n
With this  background we  will advert  to the  facts of\t the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
     8.The  Board  resisted  the  appellant’s  case  on\t two
\ngrounds (i) that it is not an industry within the meaning of
\nthe Act\t and (ii)  that it  does not  employ more  than\t 100
\npersons. It  is necessary  to note  at this  stage that\t the
\nBoard had  not originally  urged any  plea that\t it did\t not
\nemploy sufficient  employees to\t attract  the  Act.  It\t was
\nduring the  course of  argument that  this  plea  about\t the
\nnumber of  appointees was  urged by the Board. However, both
\nthe Labour Court and the Industrial Court considered the two
\njurisdictional questions  as to\t whether the  Board  was  an
\nindustry and  as to  whether it\t had employed  more than 100
\npersons.\n<\/p>\n
     9. We have gone through the orders passed by the labour
\nCourt and the Industrial Court, carefully. According to us a
\nclose examination  of the  evidence adduced  in the case and
\nthe discussions\t bearing on  them by  the  Labour  Court  in
\nparticular and the Industrial Court, admits of no doubt that
\nthe Board  employed more than 100 persons. For this purpose,
\nwe content  ourselves by  extracting the following paragraph
\nfrom the  order of  the Labour\tCourt while  considering the
\nfirst point  namely whether  the provisions  of the  Act are
\napplicable to the Board.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Thus\t the   applicant’s   contention\t  that\t the
\n\t  Parishad’s cloth weaving centres were in existence
\n\t  till 2  years before and his contention in respect
\n\t  of the  number of  workers  engaged  at  Mandsaur,
\n\t  Gwalior, Anjad  entries etc. have not been refuted
\n\t  by the  nor applicant.  It is\t therefore concluded
\n\t  them at  (sic) 60,  40, 4 & 3 workers were working
\n\t  at  Parishad’s   centres  situated   at  Mandsaur,
\n\t  Gwalior, Anjad  and Parsinga.\t Besides this  there
\n\t  were officials  working at  Chanderi\t&  Maneshwar
\n\t  weaving centres.  The\t non  applicant\t who  is  in
\n\t  possession of\t the records  of appointment and who
\n\t  is also  not disclosing  the exact figures (of the
\n\t  workers), therefore the conclusions go against the
\n\t  non applicant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10. This  finding on  the appreciation  of the evidence
\ngiven by  the witnesses\t concludes the\tparties according to
\nus, regarding  the number  of the  employees employed by the
\nBoard. Even  so, when the matter went before the High Court,
\nthe High Court felt that the jurisdictional question was not
\nproperly considered  by the  Labour Court. Therefore, in the
\nfirst round  the matter\t was remanded by the High Court, and
\nthe High Court made the following observations:\n<\/p>\n
648<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “The relevant\t notification applied the provisions
\n\t  of  the  Act\tto  undertaking\t in  the  industries
\n\t  specified in\t– the schedule wherein the number of
\n\t  employees,  was  or  is  more\t than  one  hundred.
\n\t  Evidently,  it   had\tno  application\t to  smaller
\n\t  establishments   of\tnotified   industries\tthat
\n\t  employed less\t than 100 persons. That being so, it
\n\t  is plain  enough that the Courts below misdirected
\n\t  themselves by taking into account the total number
\n\t  of the  employees of\tthe Board  without regard to
\n\t  the consideration  whether they  were employed  or
\n\t  not in the  establishment relating to textiles and
\n\t  the\tfindings    recorded   by    them   on\t the
\n\t  jurisdictional facts\tdo not\tbear examination and
\n\t  cannot be  sustained. Since  the facts  bearing on
\n\t  the question have not been properly ascertained it
\n\t  would be  right to  set aside\t the  order  of\t the
\n\t  Industrial Court  and leave  it to  that Court  to
\n\t  decide these\tfacts afresh  with due regard to all
\n\t  the relevant\tprovisions of  the  M.P.  Industrial
\n\t  Relations Act,  1960 and  then to  dispose of\t the
\n\t  claim made by the respondent 3 on merits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11. We may, even at this stage, point out that the High
\nCourt could have set aside the order of the Labour Court and
\nthe Industrial\tCourt, on the ground that the Board did not,
\naccording to  it, satisfy the definition of industry without
\nremanding the  case to the Industrial Court to determine the
\nnumber of employees. We are making this statement in view of
\nan objection taken by the appellant’s counsel before us that
\nthe  respondent\t cannot,  in  this  appeal,  reagitate\tthat
\nquestion, he having been concluded by the remand order which
\nwas restricted only to the number of employees in the Board.\n<\/p>\n
     12. After\tremand, the  Industrial Court considered the
\nquestion again.\t The Industrial\t Court understood the remand
\norder and, according to us, rightly, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “After  the\tremand\tthe   parties  have  adduced
\n\t  evidence which  is common in both cases. The exact
\n\t  question I am called upon to answer is, the number
\n\t  of employees\temployed  by  the  parishad  in\t its
\n\t  textiles activity  and not  all  other  activities
\n\t  such as Oil, Paper Carpentry, Gur Tannery, Pottery
\n\t  etc. me best evidence will be the record kept with
\n\t  the parishad.\t The oral  evidence   will not be of
\n\t  much help,  though it\t may  have  some  additional
\n\t  value.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
649<\/span><\/p>\n
     13.  After\t discussing  the  evidence  in\tdetail,\t the
\nIndustrial Court came to the conclusion thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “For all these reasons, I hold that in the textile
\n\t  activity of  the Board  (parishad) the  number  of
\n\t  employees is\tor has\tbeen over  and more than 100
\n\t  from\t1.12.59\t  to  31.12.60,\t  vide\tEx-D\/1\tand,
\n\t  therefore the\t employees had\ta right\t to file the
\n\t  application under the Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14. The  Industrial Court\tagain held  in favour of the
\nappellant The  matter went  to the  High Court\tagain in the
\nSecond round,  at the instance of the Board. On the question
\nof number  of employees\t in the Board, in paragraphs 10 & 11
\nof the Judgment, the High Court observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “….Thus from  the  statement  of  this  witness,
\n\t  there can  be no  doubt that\tthere were more than
\n\t  100 persons  in all at the wool weaving centres in
\n\t  the State  and at  some of  the centres the number
\n\t  was more than 100. The witness further stated that
\n\t  there are  16 industries  under the Board, such as
\n\t  Paper Industry,  Soap\t Industry,  Khadi  Industry,
\n\t  Wool Industry and so on.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Similarly, in\t the connected case, namely M.P. No.
\n\t  713 of 1971, in pursuance of the remand order, the
\n\t  statement of Gunadeo Patil (Petitioner’s Annexure-
\n\t  F)  and   the\t other\t witness,   Sadashiv   Patil
\n\t  (Petitioner’s\t Annexure-f\/1)\twere  recorded.\t The
\n\t  statements of\t these two witnesses were similar to
\n\t  the statements in the main case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(The High  Court was  dealing with the case of two employees
\nin Misc.  Petition No. 712\/1971 and 713\/1971 and that is why
\nmention is MADE about the connected case.)\n<\/p>\n
     15.  After\t  holding  thus,   the\tHigh   Court   spent
\nconsiderable  part  of\tthe  Judgment  for  considering\t the
\nkindred question  whether the  board was an industry or not.
\nThe appellant’s\t counsel raised an objection that it was not
\nopen to\t raise this question as it was covered by the remand
\norder (which  was confined only to the number of employees).
\nIn our\tview, this  objection is  well founded and has to be
\nupheld. According  to  us,  the\t appellant  is\tentitled  to
\nsucceed on  this ground\t alone. However,  we would  like  to
\nanswer
\n650<\/span>
\nthe other  question also  for the  purpose of  completion of
\nthis  Judgment\t and  to   set\tat   rest  possible   future
\ncontroversies on the subject .\n<\/p>\n
     16. The  definition clause\t in  the  Act  is  far\tfrom
\nsatisfactory. The  definition of  word ‘industry’ in Section
\n2(19) and  the word  ‘undertaking’ in Section 2(33) does not
\nmake happy reading but this unhappy phraseology need not vex
\nus. If\tfrom the  evidence available,  we can  say, that the
\nBoard carries  on trade\t or business,  it would straightaway
\nbecome an  industry under the Act. We have already seen that
\none of\tthe functions of the Board is to support, encourage,
\nassist and  carry on Khadi and Village Industries and in the
\nmatters incidental to such trade or BUSINESS. What the Board
\ndoes is to supply raw wool to Cooperative Societies, so that
\nthe Societies  can engage  themselves in  useful  work.\t The
\nSocieties after\t weaving raw  wool, convert  them into\tspun
\nblankets and  supply them to the Board. The blankets so spun
\nare not\t the properties\t of the\t Societies. They  have to be
\ngiven back  to the  Board. The\tblankets  so  supplied\tfrom
\nvarious centres to the Board, have necessarily to be sold in
\nthe open  market. This act of sale would clearly come within
\nthe definition of the word trade or business as contemplated
\nin Section  2 (19)  of the  Act. This  finding\tof  ours  is
\nsupported by the evidence in the case also. The appellant in
\nhis evidence  stated that at the centre where he was posted,
\nweaving of  woolen blankets  was done  by the  Societies and
\nother centres  constituted at  various places  and the woven
\nblankets were  supplied back  to the  Board. Three witnesses
\nwere examined  on behalf  of the  Board. Sh.  Choudhary, the
\nfirst witness  and Sh. Patil the next witness, admitted that
\nthe spinning and weaving work of cotton and woolen cloth was
\ngot done  by the  Board through various Societies. These two
\nsaid witnesses admitted that the looms belonged to the Board
\nand  the   Board  supplied  wool  and  other  materials\t and
\nimplements and\tsold manufactured goods after obtaining them
\nfrom the  Societies. They  also made  an important admission
\nthat the  Society could\t not sell  the goods prepared out of
\nthe wool  supplied by  the Board  to anybody else. The third
\nwitness also  supported this  case though  differed from the
\nsecond witness\tand stated that the Board extended marketing
\nfacilities to the Societies.\n<\/p>\n
     17. We thought it necessary to refer to the evidence in
\nthe case  to disabuse  an impression attempted to be created
\nthat the  Board did  not sell  the blankets  it got from the
\nvarious societies  spun out  of the  wool supplied  to them.
\nThere is a clear admission by one witness that the Societies
\ncannot sell the blankets
\n651<\/span>
\nprepared out  of the  wool supplied  by the Board to any one
\nelse. No  argument is  necessary to  hold that\tthe blankets
\nreceived by  the Board\tfrom various centres have only to be
\nsold and not used by the Board for its own purpose. Or. this
\nevidence the  conclusion  is  irresistible  that  the  Board
\nengages itself\tin the\tbusiness of selling blankets. It has
\ntherefore to  be held  that the\t Board is an industry within
\nthe meaning of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     18. The  appellant is  entitled to\t succeed on both the
\ngrounds. We set aside the order passed by the High Court and
\nrestore the  orders passed  by\tthe  labour  Court  and\t the
\nIndustrial Court.  The appellant  will get his cost from the
\nfirst Respondent quantified at Rs. 2,500.\n<\/p>\n
A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n652<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, … on 19 August, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 504, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 641 Author: V Khalid Bench: Khalid, V. (J) PETITIONER: GOPAL. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MADHYA PRADESH KHADI AND VILLAGE DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/08\/1985 BENCH: KHALID, V. (J) BENCH: KHALID, V. (J) ERADI, […]<\/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-53900","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGopal vs The Administrative Officer, ... on 19 August, 1985 - 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\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, ... on 19 August, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985\" \/>\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=\"1985-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-18T09:49:14+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, … on 19 August, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-18T09:49:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985\"},\"wordCount\":2873,\"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\\\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985\",\"name\":\"Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, ... on 19 August, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-18T09:49:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, … on 19 August, 1985\"}]},{\"@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":"Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, ... on 19 August, 1985 - 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\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, ... on 19 August, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-18T09:49:14+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, … on 19 August, 1985","datePublished":"1985-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-18T09:49:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985"},"wordCount":2873,"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\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985","name":"Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, ... on 19 August, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-18T09:49:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vs-the-administrative-officer-on-19-august-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, … on 19 August, 1985"}]},{"@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\/53900","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=53900"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53900\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53900"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53900"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53900"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}