Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

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