over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization, whereas Entry 24 refers to industries subject to the provisions of entries 7 and 52 of List 1. Reliance is also placed on Entry 22 in the Concurrent List which relates to Trade Unions; industrial and labour dis· putes. The argument is that agriculture has been left, in the main, to the jurisdiction of the State Legislatures and in doing so, a distinction has been recognised between argriculture on the one hand and industry on the other. It is further suggested that where the legislature wants to include agriculture within the scope of its industrial legislation, it makes a specific and express provision in that behalf; and in support of this argument, reliance is placed on the pro· visions of s. 3(19) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (r\o. XI of 19!i). Section 3(19) which defines an industry, provides that 'industry' means, inter alfo, agricullure and agricultural operations. Mr. Setalvad, therefore, argues that if this broad distinction between agriculture and industry is borne in mind, it should not be difficult to exclude agricultural operations from t' • purview of s. 2(j) of the Act. He has also askt us to take into account the fact that if we were to h,,ld that all agriculture and agricultural operations fell within s. 2 (j), it may have an incalculable impact upon the agricultural economy of this country. There is, no doubt, considerable force in this argument.
