Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

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

Latest Legal News