UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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