Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Co-operative Societies Are Not Exempt From Labour Laws, They Must Comply With General Labour Legislations:  Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has held that co-operative societies providing healthcare services are not exempt from general labour laws despite being governed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

The judgment addressed the dispute over whether co-operative societies are solely governed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and thus exempt from other labour laws, or if they must comply with general labour legislations aimed at welfare and social security. The court held that general labour laws applicable to commercial establishments and other entities also apply to co-operative societies unless explicitly exempted.

The petitioner, Cherplaserry Co-operative Hospital Ltd., represented by its secretary, filed a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Officer, Ottappalam, to enforce compliance with various labour laws including the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, among others. The petitioner contended that being regulated by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, it was exempt from the application of other labour laws.

The court observed that the co-operation falls under the state list, while labour welfare is under the concurrent list, thus both state and central laws are applicable.

Justice Murali Purushothaman pointed out that the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act does not provide a shield against compliance with broader labour welfare measures not specifically covered by it.

The judgment extensively discussed the application of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, Minimum Wages Act, Maternity Benefit Act, and the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act to the petitioner.

It was determined that the hospital qualifies as a 'commercial establishment' and hence is subject to the said acts.

Various precedents were cited where the courts had upheld the applicability of labour laws to co-operative societies, emphasizing that co-operative societies do not stand outside the scope of general labour legislations unless specifically stated.

The court dismissed the writ petition, reaffirming that the petitioner is required to comply with the stipulations of the general labour laws. The court underscored that these laws operate in different fields and possess distinct purposes aimed at employee welfare, which are not negated by the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

Date of Decision: April 11, 2024.

Cherplaserry Co-operative Hospital Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Ors.

Latest Legal News