Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1489; 2006(3)BomCR260; (2006)4CompLJ4(SC); JT2006(3)SC235; 2006(3)SCALE1; (2006)3SCC434; [2006]67SCL107(SC)
ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 11.5.2005244. The order of this Court dated 11th May, 2005 reads as under:So far as transactions relating to seven mills belonging to the National Textile Corporation are concerned, including sale of Jupiter Mills, it is not in dispute that transactions have reached a final stage. The purchasers of Jupiter Mills have already paid Rs 16 crores and a sum of Rs 376 crores would pass hands if the transaction is completed. If the transactions in respect of the mills are not allowed to be completed, the scheme framed by BIFR would come to a standstill resulting in accrual of interest payable by the National Textile Corporation to the financial institutions besides other hardships which may be caused to various other persons including the workers.We, therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as also the law operating in the field, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the National Textile Corporation is permitted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1994Bom141; (1993)95BOMLR337; 1993(1)MhLj958
ORDERH. D. Patel, J. 1. A common question arose in the aforesaid four Letters Patent Appeals about their maintainability under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (Bombay) before the Division Bench consisting of H. W. Dhabe and A. A. Desai, JJ. By judgment delivered on 6-2-1989, one of the Judges of the Division Bench, namely, Dhabe, J. expressed his opinion by giving reasons that all the four appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are maintainable. The other Judge, that is, Desai, J., however, gave his opinion on 26-11-1992 in the following words : 'Having regard to the view as then taken in the case of Jaitunbi, I hold that the appeals are not maintainable. I, therefore, dismiss the same.'It becomes necessary to point out that the case of Jaitunbi wd/o Mohammed Ismail v. Smt. Halimabi w/o Yusuf Baig Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 1983 with other connected appeals was heard and decided by the Division Bench consisting of Quazi and Desai, JJ. on 21-8-1988. In that case my brother D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(2)ALLMR376; (2000)IIILLJ555Bom
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. All these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are concerning the right of the employees in the Cotton Textile Industry in the local area of Mumbai to work upto the age of 63 years. These petitions are filed either by the Textile Mill/Company or by the employees concerned challenging the orders passed by the Industrial Court constituted under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act, for short) on the complaints filed by these employees against these Mill Companies invoking items 1, 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act. It is, therefore, that all these petitions have been directed to be heard together and are accordingly being decided together.2. The Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, governs the relationship between the employers and the employees engaged in this Cotton Textile Industry. Under Chapter VII of this Act, Standing Orders are required to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2005(106)FLR52]
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The issue which arises in the present petition is, which is the 'Appropriate Government' in respect 'of the respondent No. 1 Bank, a Multi State Co-operative Bank carrying on business in more than one State.A few facts now may be set out:The petitioner Union had filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 769 of 2002 before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, under Item 5 of Schedule II and Items 3, 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Respondent No. 1 raised an objection that M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, is not applicable as the appropriate Government in respect of the Bank is the Central Government. It was contended that as the Respondent No. 1 is a bank engaged in the business of banking and is Banking Company as defined under Clause (c) of Section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 which is now known as Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Considering the definition of appropriate Government, the appropriate Government would be the Central G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: The litigation background- 1 Petitioner No.1, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, Corporation) is a statutory authority established under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, the MMC Act). The Petitioners are under various obligations to discharge their duties and functions, through its employees/workers. Petitioner No.1 is a Local Body/ Authority/Employer to provide public services, all sorts of Civil amenities and for smooth and proper function and to maintain all essential services/facilities, they appoint various types of employees for the respective Departments. Both are governed by their employment contract and related laws. The Petitioner-Corporation, for these activities, has more than 145000 employees, including permanent, seasonal and daily employees, excluding part timers. It has more than 1000 designations and more than 50 and odd related pay-scale grading wages and related benefits. 2 Respondent No.1 (Munic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)MhLj849
B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri V.R. Thakur, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Shri S. D. Thakur, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Heard finally by consent.2. The petitioners, who were the employees of respondent No. 1, Company, have filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the learned Industrial Court Maharashtra (Nagpur Bench) in Complaint (ULP) No. 1024/1999 thereby dismissing the complaint of the petitioners. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under.3. That the petitioners/complainants have filed a complaint before the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur praying for declaration that the agreement dated 2-6-1999 entered into between the respondent Nos. 1 and respondent Ho. 2 to be illegal, void ab initio, non est still born and of on consequence and effect and that the resignations of the petitioners and other workers obtained by the respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR221]; 2002(1)MhLj760
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In these proceedings, the petitioner impugns an order of the Industrial Court dated 2nd September, 1997 passed in revision in an Application under section 44 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ('the B.I.R. Act').2. The petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Clerk by the first respondent which is a Co-operative Bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In 1975, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Senior Officer, Grade-I and on 12th February, 1985, came to be posted as Branch Manager at the Central Office Branch, where the Head Office of the Bank is located. On 2nd January, 1991, a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner setting out that in violation of the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner had been found to be extending facilities to customers of the Bank beyond 10% of the sanctioned limit. As a result, the Board of Directors had curtailed the powers of Branch Manager to limit such faci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)IIILLJ529Bom
J.N. Patel, J.1. Rule made returnable by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Heard forthwith. The petitioner/employer impugns the order dated August 3, 1998 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, on an application under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, in Complaint (ULP) No. 460 of 1990.2. The respondent No. 2 employee had challenged the transfer order dated May 14, 1998 issued by the petitioner/employer, transferring him to their Chandrapur Depot on the same terms and conditions of service as from May 25, 1998. It was the case of the respondent/employee that because he requested for extending the benefits available under the Standing Orders, the petitioner/employer was annoyed by the said representation and effected his transfer from Nagpur (Kamptee) to Chandrapur Depot, during the period when he was on medical leave. It was also contended that the condition of transfer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(1)ALLMR732; 2004(1)BomCR4
Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge confirming the order of the Industrial Court, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant under Item 9 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For Short, hereinafter referred to as 'MRTU & PUPL Act') on the ground that the relief claimed by the appellant could not be granted as the company was declared a sick unit and consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR') had not been obtained.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:The appellant was working in the Grey Winding department of Kohinoor Mill since 1979. On 18.1.1982, a strike was declared in the textile industry. The appellant was not assigned any work although he reported for duty during the strike period. The appellant, therefore, filed an application before the Labour Court under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR713; [2006(106)FLR85]; (2005)IILLJ1010Bom; 2005(2)MhLj906
A.P. Shah, J. 1. Appeal admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, appeal is called out and heard.2. This appeal raises a short but interesting question of law as to which is the 'appropriate Government' in respect of the Appellant Bank, a multi-State Co-operative Bank, carrying on business in more than one State. The facts giving rise to the appeal and which are undisputed are briefly stated as follows:3. The appellant Bank was originally registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Subsequently, the appellant Bank was registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 due to number of branches being outside Maharashtra. The appellant Bank is in the banking business and is governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BR Act'). The respondent is a trade union and represents the workmen employed in the Appellant Bank. The respondent filed complaint (ULP) No. 769...
Tag this Judgment!