Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(6)BomCR150
Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The petitioner filed an application in a complaint instituted by the first respondent of unfair labour practices under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('the Act'). Besides the petitioner, the third respondent which is an Employees' Co-operative Canteen Society has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings in the Industrial Court. The relief which is sought in the complaint is a direction to the petitioner to treat the workmen engaged in the canteen as regular and permanent workmen of the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date on which they joined service and to extend benefits to them at par with similarly situated workmen. The maintainability of the complaint was questioned in the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the workmen of the Canteen and the petitioner herein. A complaint under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)BomCR479
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. Rule. Mr. Nagle waives service for respondents. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through its General Manager, Bombay Electric and Supply and Transport Undertaking (B.E.S.T.), challenges the order dated 30th December 2002 delivered by the Dy. Commissioner of Labour and Settlement Officer, which has been confirmed by the President Industrial Court on 16th August 2007.3. The petitioner is engaged in the supply of electricity so also conduct and maintenance of Public Transport Service in Greater Mumbai. The undertaking of the petitioner is registered as such under Section 11 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. (B.I.R. Act for short). The respondent is Trade Union registered under the Trade Union's Act. It is represented and approved Union for the Transport Industry of the petitioner.4. The petitioner states that Standin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)ALLMR255; 1998(2)BomCR692; 1998(1)MhLj297
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call (or the record and proceedings of Complaint (ULP) No. 296 of 1983 quashing the impugned order dated 11th July, 1988 passed by the fourth respondent. A declaration is prayed for to the effect that the first respondent has engaged in unfair labour practices. A direction is sought to the first respondent to reinstate M/s. A.M. Shingre, G.M. Joshi, S.L. Godbole and M.G. Shaligram with full back wages and continuity of service from the dates on which their services were respectively terminated.2. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and also registered as the representative and approved union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 in respect of employees employed in the Co-operative Bank Industry in the local area of Pune Cantonment and Pun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR1; 1998(4)BomCR537; 1998(1)MhLj818
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J. 1. On 22nd October, 1983 the bus driven by the respondent met with an accident with Jeep bearing No. M.T.S. 245. The said incident unfortunately resulted in the death of five persons travelling in the jeep and some passengers in the bus also sustained injuries. A charge-sheet was served on the respondent. The Enquiry Officer gave his report and held that the misconduct alleged against the respondent was proved. By order dated 11th September, 1987 the Disciplinary Authority on a consideration of the enquiry papers and past service record dismissed the respondent from service of the petitioner. The internal appeals provided for in the conditions of service were pursued by the respondent. The appeals however were rejected.2. The respondent, thereafter filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Bhandara dated 31st May, 1995. The Labour Court, Bhandara set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service. The Labour Court, however, declined to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)IILLJ80Bom
1. Admit. Respondent No. 1 waives services. On the request of counsel for the appellant names of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are deleted. Heard counsel for the appellant and respondent who is appearing in person.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3683 of 1996 dated July 9, 2004. By this order the learned single Judge set aside the orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court and remanded the matter to the Labour Court to be decided afresh in accordance with law. The learned single Judge further directed that the appellant bank will have to prove the misconduct alleged against the respondent workman by leading evidence before the Labour Court and after such evidence is led the Labour Court will have to consider whether the punishment of dismissal was proper.3. The appellant is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is inter alia engaged in the busines...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR674; 2008(5)BomCR513; [2008(119)FLR641]; (2009)ILLJ491Bom
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 22/2/2005 thereby allowing First Appeal No. 696 of 2001. In the said First Appeal filed by the present respondent - company, the judgment and order of the Employees' Insurance Court at Pune rendered on 4/5/2001 was under challenge and the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court was pleased to dismiss Application (ESI) No. 18 of 1993 filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the ESI Act' for short). It appears that the Sub-Regional office of the appellant - Corporation at Pune had by its letter dated 17/8/1993 informed the company regarding the coverage of its establishment under the provisions of the ESI Act commencing from 27/11/1976 and the said decision of the Corporation was upheld by the Employees' Insurance Court at Pune. When First Appeal No. 696 of 2001 was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 22/2/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. Sustained industrial growth is possible in a country with an optimum utilization of input. Labour, skilled on/and unskilled is an important nay an inevitable input without which no industry can function. And for better and maximum or the optimum utilization of this manpower harmony between the manpower input and the management which uses this manpower for a better output, is a first and foremost aspect in an industrial fora. Whereas disharmony between these two forces adversely affects the output and the future of industry. Vice versa is true when there is harmony. It is therefore, the workman whose efficiency is paramount to attain optimum. To maintain this efficiency the workman must have the congenial industrial environment. To attain the same, the workman must have the bargaining force without which he is subjected to exploitation. Since individual workman has no bargaining power having any impact. It is the collective bargaining power which is of some importance in the industri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Writ Petition No.9002/2010 (s) and Writ Petition No.860/2012 (s) MOIL Jan Shakti Majdoor Sangh vs. Union of India -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Counsel for petitioner: Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Shri S. K. Rao, Sr. Adv.with Shri V. K. Pandey. Adv. Respondents No.1-3: Shri Vikram Singh, Adv. Respondent No. 4: Smt. Indira Nair, Sr. Adv. With Shri Rajas Pohankar Adv. Respondent No.5: Shri S. D. Thakur, Adv. and Shri K. C. Ghildiyal, Adv. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (19.06.2012) Sustained industrial growth is possible in a country with an optimum utilization of input. Labour, skilled on/and unskilled is an important nay an inevitable input without which no industry can function. And for better and maximum or the optimum utilization o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1987(3)BomCR83; 1987MhLJ593
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. Parties by Counsel. A short question which is raised in this Patent Appeal on behalf of the appellant is that unless an approach notice under section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short, 'the B.I.R. Act') is given the respondent No. 3 whose services were terminated by the appellant bank cannot be held to be an employee within the meaning of the expression 'employee' as defined under section 2(13) of the said Act which is applicable to the appellant bank. The submission thus is that if the respondent No. 3 is not an employee within the meaning of the B.I.R. Act the would not be an employee within the meaning of the said expression under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act') also and his application, therefore, under the said Act would not maintainable. It may be stated at this stage that as per section 3(5) of the Act if the industry to which this Act is applicable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)IVLLJ685Mad
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. This writ petition raises an important question with respect to the procedure for recognition of a trade union as the representative body of workmen in an industry in the absence of a specific statutory provision of law.2. MRF Limited (Madras Rubber Factory) is a leading Tyre manufacturing company situated in Ichiputhur Village of Arakonam Taluk in Vellore District of Tamil Nadu. It is having its Corporate Office in Chennai. It employs around 1500 workmen in different capacities, and it is one of the major industrial units situated in the vicinity of Chennai.3. The appellant/petitioner is a Registered Trade Union, which claims to represent majority of the workmen functioning in this industry. Respondent No. 6 is another Trade Union, which also claims to have majority membership. Respondent No. 4 is the Management of MRF Limited and Respondent No. 5 is its Plant Manager. Respondents 4 and 5 are stated to be entertaining Respondent No. 6 and not the petitioner for th...
Tag this Judgment!