Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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