Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Absence of profit is not a sole factor for deciding the status of the employer as ‘industry: High Court of Bombay

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court, presided by Justice Amit Borkar, upheld the Labour Court Satara's decision regarding the reinstatement of employees with full backwages. The court dismissed writ petitions filed by Daulat Panipurvatha Sahakari Sanstha, challenging the Labour Court's order which favored the employees, citing their unlawful termination without proper inquiry.

The case revolved around the interpretation of Sections 25(F) and 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners argued that they did not qualify as an 'industry' under the Act and contended the financial incapacity to pay full back-wages. The employees, in response, claimed unjust termination without due process.

The Labour Court identified the petitioners as an industry, referring to the landmark judgment in the Bangalore Water Supply case. Justice Borkar observed, "Absence of profit is not a sole factor for deciding the status of the employer as ‘industry’.” He further noted that the cooperative society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, still qualifies as an industry under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, due to the nature of services it provides.

The court scrutinized the petitioner's claim of financial distress and found it unsubstantiated. Justice Borkar remarked, "No evidence was laid down before the Labour Court to justify the termination." He emphasized the importance of the employer providing substantial evidence to support their claims, which was lacking in this case.

The High Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the Labour Court's order under writ jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of both writ petitions without costs. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding employees' rights and the obligations of employers under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Date of Decision: 08 February 2024

Daulat Panipurvatha Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Malhar Peth Through Its Chairman and Anr. vs. Hanmant Ramchandra Gaikwad & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News