Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

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