Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary

Central Government is the Appropriate Authority for Tata Memorial Centre: Bombay High Court Overturns Industrial Court Decision

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court declared, "Central Government is the appropriate authority for Tata Memorial Centre (TMC)", overturning the decision of the Industrial Court.

Legal Point: The High Court's decision focused on identifying the 'appropriate government' for Tata Memorial Centre (TMC) under the Industrial Disputes Act, post-amendment of 2010. The key question was whether TMC, an autonomous body, fell under the control of the Central or State Government for labor law purposes.

Facts and Issues: The Tata Memorial Centre filed petitions challenging the Industrial Court's decision, which held the State Government as the appropriate authority for TMC. The matter hinged on the interpretation of the amended Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. TMC, originally established by Sir Dorabjee Tata Trust, eventually came under the administrative and financial control of the Central Government. The High Court was tasked with determining if this control constituted TMC as an autonomous body under Central Government, post the 2010 amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act.

Administrative and Financial Control by Central Government: The court scrutinized evidence showing TMC's funding and control by the Department of Atomic Energy, a Central Government entity. The Centre's accounts are audited by government agencies, and key decisions, including pension schemes and salary structures, require Central Government approval.

Governing Council Composition: The composition of TMC's Governing Council, with significant representation from Central Government officials, indicated Central Government control.

Historical Context and Legal Interpretations: The court considered TMC's transition from a trust-run institution to one under Central Government, interpreting the term 'appropriate government' in light of the amended definition. The judgment distinguished between 'under the control of' and 'controlled by', leaning towards a broader understanding of control in the context of autonomous bodies.

Decision: The High Court declared the Central Government as the appropriate authority for TMC, setting aside the Industrial Court's decision. It held that complaints under the presumption of State Government control were not maintainable, directing the Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union to initiate proceedings before the appropriate forum.

Date of Decision: 20 March 2024.

Tata Memorial Centre vs. Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union and Others

Similar News