Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(4)ALLMR636; 1999(1)BomCR840; 1998(3)MhLj214
..... whether the termination of service of an employee who is not covered under the provisions of the industrial disputes act, 1947 or the bombay industrial relations act, 1946, amounts to a dispute touching the management or business of a society, within the meaning of section 91(1) of the maharashtra cooperative societies act and(c) whether the petitioners are entitled to claim the relief of reinstatement in service with back ..... under :'provided that an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the industrial disputes act, 1947, or rejection of nomination paper at the election to a committee of any society other than a notified society under section 73-c or a society specified by or under section 73-g, or refusal of admission to the membership by a society to any person qualified therefor [or any proceeding for the recovery of the amount as arrear of land revenue on a certificate granted by the registrars under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 101 or sub-section (1) of section 137 or the recovery proceeding ..... one of the questions that was considered by the supreme court in this case was whether a dispute raised by the said employee for setting aside his removal from service on the ground that it was an act of victimization and for reinstatement in service with back wages, was one 'touching the management or business of the society', within the contemplation of the co-operative societies act ..... court, subsequently, in a more recent case of integrated rural development .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(2)ALLMR486; 1998(3)BomCR128; (1998)1BOMLR597; [1998(79)FLR202]; 1998(1)MhLj915
..... an opportunity to answer the charge and permitted to be defended by his representative under section 30 of the bombay industrial relations act, 1946. ..... learned counsel has drawn my attention to the provisions of section 36 of the industrial disputes act, 1947 and more specifically to the judgment of the apex court in the case of paradip port trust v their workmen, reported in : (1976)iillj409sc for the proposition that even though there was a bar under section 36 of the industrial disputes act for representation by a lawyer, a lawyer who is an office bearer of a trade union or officer of an association of employers has the right ..... made where by model standing orders for various categories of workmen have been framed in the state of maharashtra and which are known as the bombay industrial employment (standing orders) rules, 1959 ..... in rule 18 and such officers or any union (other than a recognised union) shall have right- (i) to meet and discuss with an employer or any persons appointed by him for the purpose, the grievances of its members employed in his undertaking (including grievances relating to discharge, removal, retrenchment, termination of service or dismissal or suspension), subject to the following conditions, namely: (a) the discussion shall ordinarily be held on two days in a week during such hours as may be fixed by ..... conferred certain rights on a workman and has not excluded the provisions of one act from the other the legislative's intent must be given effect to. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1987(3)BomCR74
..... this petition is directed against the order of the first labour court holding that a complaint by an employee under section 28 (1) of the maharashtra recognition of trade unions and prevention of unfair labour practices act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the unfair labour practices act'), is not maintainable, without his complying with the provisions of section 42(4) of the bombay industrial relations act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the bombay act').2. ..... under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 3 thereof; in this act, unless the context requires otherwise, 'bombay act' means the bombay industrial relations act, 1946, and 'central act' means the industrial disputes act, 1947 ..... this view of the matter, the order passed by the first labour court, dismissing the complaint under section 28(1) of the unfair labour practices act, 1971, because the provisions of section 42(4) of the bombay industrial relations act were not complied with, cannot be sustained. ..... the observations in para 16 of the report are important and they are as follows :'it must be held that a person who is dismissed would be an employee within the meaning of section 3(13) of the act and we can see no valid reason for differentiating the case of a dismissed employee from one who complains of some other change. ..... much more is needed, besides a mere comparison of the different provisions of the two acts, to show that they would operate in a discriminatory manner on the employees covered by the different .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1867; 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)861; 2008(3)BomCR25; [2008(117)FLR891]; JT2008(4)SC211; (2008)IILLJ697SC; 2008(4)SCALE704; AIRSCW2618; 2008(2)Supreme760; (2008)13SCC441
..... section 59 makes it clear that if any proceeding is initiated under the the mrtu and pulp act, 1971, no proceeding shall be entertained by any authority in respect of those matters under the bombay industrial relations act, 1946 (bombay act) and industrial disputes act ..... maharashtra appointed a committee called 'the committee on unfair labour practices' for defining certain activities of employers and workers and their organizations which should be treated as unfair labour practices and for suggesting action which should be taken against employers or workers, or their organizations, for engaging in such unfair labour practices;and whereas, after taking into consideration the report of the committee the government is of opinion that it is expedient to provide for the recognition of trade unions for ..... special circumstances and most of the employees are working for more than 10-15 years and finding that there is no valid reason for the company to deny their permanency, the industrial court rightly concluded that the company has committed unfair labour practice under item 9 of schedule iv of the mrtu and pulp act, 1971 and issued appropriate directions. ..... the case of the complainant-union was that the 21 workmen who were working in one of the canteens of the respondent-company, were not given the service conditions as were available to the other workmen of the company and ..... there is no scope for reconsidering cipla case the view which really echoed the one taken about almost a decade .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR692; [2006(108)FLR665]
..... on this material, the industrial court could not have possibly come to the conclusion that the respondent was an employee within the meaning of section 3(13) of the bombay industrial relations act, 1946 and an employee within the meaning of section 3(5) of the maharashtra recognition of trade unions and prevention of trade unions act, 1971. ..... on 9th february, 2004, the respondent was convicted of an offence under section 7 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 by the court of sessions for greater bombay in special case 10 of 1997 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. ..... service regulation 10.6 provides that a member of the staff shall be entitled during the period of suspension to a subsistence allowance at such rate as a suspending authority may direct, but not less than 1/3rd of the pay and allowance which he would, but for the suspension, have drawn. ..... the respondent stated that he was required to collect electric meters in areas where demolitions have taken place and take measurements of cables for the purposes of new connections. ..... to carry out site investigations for new simha meter connection in hutment areas. 2. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR605; 2009(6)MhLj268
..... referring to provisions of clause 18 of section 3 of the bombay industrial relations act, she submitted that this was an industrial matter pertaining to change and therefore, in view of the provisions of the bombay industrial relations act notice of change was required to be given. ..... next she submitted that the question had already been raised by the reference before the industrial court and by award dated 20th april, 1987, the court held that the reference was not competent under the industrial disputes act, since provisions of bombay industrial relations act applied to the industry carried on by the handloom corporation. ..... takes exception to the order passed by learned member, industrial court, nagpur allowing respondents workmens' complaint under the maharashtra recognition of trade unions and prevention of unfair labour practices act ('mrtu & pulp act' for short), holding the petitioner guilty of engaging in unfair labour practice within the meaning of items 5 and 9 in schedule iv to the mrtu & pulp act, and directing the petitioner to bring the respondents on the timescale prescribed for the posts of mazdoors, giving them all the benefits ..... . she also pointed out that in respect of one mahadeo tulshiram parate for eighteen days of work between 01.12.1986 and 31.12.1986 gross wages were shown to be rs ..... she submitted that it would have been open for the workmen to raise a demand and to have it considered, rather than make a complaint of unfair labour practice. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(1)MhLj173
..... the second limb of his argument is, in the written statement filed before the industrial court in that matter, application of provisions of the bombay industrial relations act to the petitioner industry and availability of elected representatives therein was specifically pleaded and was also established while cross examining the employee. ..... 1367/1997 before industrial court, nagpur, for declaration of unfair labour practice under item 9, schedule iv of the maharashtra recognition of trade unions and prevention of unfair labour practices act, (hereinafter referred to as act 1 of 1972) and sought direction that the petitioner should be directed to provide work to its members with wages therefor. ..... (supra), shows that there the interim relief protecting the services of the employees was granted by the industrial court and this court has found that under item 1 of schedule iv, that jurisdiction was exclusively vested with the labour court. ..... the pleadings in para 3 and 4 of the complaint, on which the petitioners have placed strong reliance, clearly show that the trade union pointed out that the employer was restraining the workers from performing their duty without formally terminating their services. ..... he states that section 28 thereof permits the individuals or their union to maintain such complaint.8. ..... it is also to be kept in mind that pleadings of labour in welfare jurisdiction also need more liberal approach and interpretation.11. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(6)ALLMR708; 2006(5)BomCR616; (2006)IIILLJ628Bom
..... the appellant-union therein, on 24.3.1982, had moved an application before the registrar functioning under the bir act for cancellation of the registration of respondent no.4-union as the representative union of workmen in the textile industry for the local area of the bombay as per provisions of section 15(b)(ii) of the bir act. ..... in that case the supreme court was dealing with the question of correct interpretation of section 3(25) of the bombay industrial relations act, 1946 (for short 'the bir act'). ..... section 18 provides for recognition of unions for more than one undertaking. 16. ..... mr.deshmukh took us through the findings recorded by the industrial court, constitution and rules of the respondent-union, the relevant provisions of the act and more particularly the provisions contained in chapter iii thereof and submitted that the present case is not covered by the ratio laid down by the supreme court in the judgments of maharashtra grini kamgar union's case (supra). ..... the supreme court in maharashtra girni kamgar union's case (supra) was considering the provisions contained in section 3(25) of the bir act in the context of the question, as aforestated, fell for its consideration. ..... 7 of 1994 filed by respondent no.1 -union under section 11 of the maharashtra recognition of trade unions and prevention of unfair labour practices act, 1971 (for short 'the act') for being registered as recognised union of the workmen in the factory of respondent no.2 company at thane. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR91
..... act by an employee as defined under section 3(13) of bombay industrial relations act is maintainable although no direct relationship as employer-employee exists between him and principal employer if he is employed by contractor who undertakes whole or any part of the work which is ordinarily the work of undertaking of such principal employer. ..... learned judge quoting the observations of full bench observes as follows:perusal of the said judgment reveals that reference to full bench was necessitated in view of definition of 'employee' in section 3(13) of bombay industrial relations act. ..... according to them they are assigned the work in shift and have worked for more than 240 days in a year and even their names appear in the muster roll. ..... the facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:the petitioners filed a complaint under section 28 of the maharashtra recognition of trade union & prevention of unfair labour practices act read with item no. ..... the jurisdiction can be exercised to hold limited inquiry and at the end thereof, the labour or industrial court has to be in position to draw only one inference that such relationship was and is accepted by employer earlier, and to deliver verdict that stand in defence raised by employer is totally false and malafide. ..... the registration by the principal employer and a valid licence to be obtained by the contractor to engage contract labour in the establishment of the petitioners. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(4)MhLj596
..... 1 that the establishment of the petitioner was covered under the provisions of the bombay industrial relations act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the said act of 1946) and, therefore, in view of the provisions of the said act of 1946 the petitioner was employer and the respondent no. ..... 'therefore, it is clear that even after considering the definition of employer and employee in the said act of 1946 and after considering its own judgment in the case of maharashtra sugar mills, the apex court came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that when the contractor engages a contract labour in connection with the work of principle employer, the relationship of master and servant is created ..... 1 in these petitions before the labour court, nagpur under section 28 read with section 7 arid item i of schedule iv of the maharashtra recognition of trade unions and unfair labour practices act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1971). ..... that being the position, we find that there is no scope for re-considering cipla's case (supra), the view which really echoed the one taken about almost a decade back.'15. ..... there is one more aspect of the matter. ..... however, it was admitted that the petitioner has constructed the pump house for supply of water and the petitioner is supplying water to various areas. ..... accordingly, the petitioner constructed a pump house and fitter plant and started supplying water to various areas. .....
Tag this Judgment!