132. Even a cursory glance makes it plain that the learned Judge took the view that a place of treatment of patients, run as a department of Government, was not an industry because it was a part of the functions of the Government. We cannot possibly agree that running a hospital, which is a welfare activity and not a sovereign function, cannot be an industry. Likewise, dealing with the Tuberculosis Hospital case the learned Judge held that the hospital was wholly charitable and also was a research institute. Primarily, it was an institution for research and training. Therefore, the Court concluded, the institution could not be described as industry. Non-sequitur. Hospital facility, research products and training services are surely services and hence industry. It is difficult to agree that a hospital is not an industry. In the third case the same factors plus the prohibition of profit are relied on by the Court. We find it difficult to hold that absence of profit, or functions of training and research, take the institution out of the scope of industry. 133. Although the facts of the three appeals considered in Safdarjung [Safdarjung Hospital v. Kuldip Singh Sethi, (1970) 1 SCC 735 : (1971) 1 SCR 177 : (1970) 2 LLJ 226] related only to hospitals with research and training component, the Bench went extensively into a survey of the earlier precedents and crystallisation of criteria for designating industries. After stating that trade and business have a wide connotation, Hidayatullah, C.J., took the view that professions must be excluded from the ambit of industry: “A profession ordinarily is an occupation requiring intellectual skill, often coupled with manual skill. Thus a teacher uses purely intellectual skill, while
