Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR74; 2006(2)BomCR899; [2005(106)FLR692]; (2005)IIILLJ483Bom; 2005(3)MhLj191
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The present Petition is directed against an award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 15th February, 2002 on a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner conducts and manages the Searock Hotel at Bandra, Mumbai. On 5th March, 1991, 12 workmen who were engaged as liftmen for the purposes of the hotel were retrenched after due compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The union representing the workmen sought a reference to adjudication which was made by the appropriate government. The contention of the union in the statement of claim was to the effect that the management had made a false plea that the company had installed automatic lifts and that consequently, the services of the workmen concerned who were operating the lifts were not necessary. In the statement of claim it was also alleged that there was a breach of the provisions inter alia of Sections 25-G, H and N of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(4)ALLMR285
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The Petitioner National Building Construction Corporation Limited ('employer industry') seek to challenge the order dated 18th March, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court. The fate of this writ petition depends on the answer to the question whether in relation to the employer industry the Central Government is the 'appropriate Government' within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'I.D. Act') and if yes, the complaint filed by the employee was not maintainable and Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.2. The employee filed the complaint against the employer industry for the alleged unfair labour practices on the part of the employer under Item 9 of Schedule IV, of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'MRTU and PULP Act') and it was prayed by the employee that the order dated 8th July, 1992 and the other orders passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(5)BomCR884; (2006)IIILLJ441Bom; 2006(4)MhLj339
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.2. Petitioner herein is the proprietor running the business of manufacture and sale of Bidis, having the business location at Kamptee in Nagpur district. Petitioner claims that he employs only ten Bidi-roller home workers, and has two workmen employed to do miscellaneous jobs titled as Tendurwala-curh-Clerk and Relaiwala, who work in the business premises. The petition has been aimed to challenge application of provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act to the petitioner's factory, in particular, and generally to challenge the amended Section 2(12), i.e., definition of 'Factory' and consequential notifications. The prayers read as follows:(i) strike down the impugned Notification No. S-38012/6/89-SS-l dated 20-10-1989 issued by the Central Government vis-a-vis the bidi industry in general and the petitioner in particular as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;(ii) strike down the impugned Notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR676; 2008(2)BomCR849; [2008(116)FLR321]; (2008)IILLJ72Bom; 2007(6)MhLj363
Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. Since the parties to these two first appeals are common and since these first appeals arise out of the order passed by the E.S.I. Court, Nagpur, on 30th October, 2006, they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.2. A few facts giving rise to these first appeals and to the controversy involved therein are stated thus; Instead of referring to the parties as appellant and respondent, it would be convenient in this case to mention them as the employer Hotel and the Corporation. The Inspector of the Corporation visited the unit of the employer Hotel on 21-7-1997 and observed that the employer Hotel was engaged in the business of lodging and providing tea, snacks and cold-drinks to the customers. It was further observed by the Inspector, as is stated in the order under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, that the employer Hotel was using one oven, L.P.G. Cylinder, a fridge, water-cooler and air conditioners to provide services to the customers. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(2)BomCR225; (2008)110BOMLR3517
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The question involved in the present petition is whether the Central Government is the appropriate government for the Petitioner or whether it falls within the jurisdiction of the State Government.2. A few facts which are relevant for the determination of this issue are as follows: The Petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner (for short, hereinafter referred to as the `Company') contends that it is a Government of India enterprise, established by the Central Government. According to the Company, all its Directors are appointed by the President of India under Article 76 (1) of its Articles of Association. The Company contends that it is functioning under the authority of the Central Government and, therefore, it is the Central Government which is appropriate government in relation to its establishment.3. The Respondent Union (for short, hereinafter referred to as the `Union') raised an industrial dispute in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994ACJ1078; 1995(2)BomCR82; (1994)96BOMLR39; [1995(70)FLR749]; (1995)ILLJ368Bom; 1995(1)MhLj379
Pendse, J.1. M/s. Associated Electrical Agencies is a partnership concern carrying on business in electronic goods. Respondent No. 2 was employed for carrying out repairs of television sets on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/-. On July 17, 1987, while carrying out repairs of a television set, a component of the set resulting into inquiry to the face of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 lost vision of the left eye. Respondent No. 2, at the time of the incident, was 27 years old. 2. The Legislature enacted the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the ESI Act') to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity in case of female employees, employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. The ESI Act came into force on April 19, 1948. The provisions of the Act apply to all the factories other than seasonal factories and the State Government, with the approval of the Central Government, is authorised to make the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ777Bom
1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has filed this appeal against the order dated July 25, 1984 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Nasik in Application (EST) No. 2 of 1982. 2. The question arising in this appeal is as to whether the Nasik Panchavati Panjarapole carries on manufacturing process with the heap of power at its establishment. 3. The Respondent filed an application before the trial Court under Sections 75 and 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for a declaration that the Respondent was not liable to pay any amount towards contribution demanded by the Deputy Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation as demanded by his Letter No. MHR/SRO/ IMS/33-5753 of 1965 dated December 7, 1982. In the said application the Respondent (Original Applicant) contended that the Respondent was not a factory within the meaning of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 4. The Appellants filed the written statement in response to the said application. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : II(1995)ACC587; 1995ACJ1087; 1995(1)BomCR94; (1994)96BOMLR49; (1995)ILLJ173Bom; 1995(1)MhLj865
D.R. Dhanuka, J 1. The Employee State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal against order dated 27th July 1982 passed by Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay, in Application (ESI) No. 60 of 1980. By the impugned order, the Employees' Insurance Court allowed the above referred application and directed the appellant Corporation to pay the dependents benefits to the Original applicants in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Employees' State Insurance Act read with First Schedule to the Act. 2. One Mr. M. A. Danawala (the insured person) was employed at the time of his death in Kandivli factory of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited which was duly covered under the provision of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Mr. M. A. Danawala is hereinafter referred to as the deceased. While the deceased was standing in the queue waiting for the bus provided by his employers through the contractors for joining duty, the deceased was run over by the bus. The deceased ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(1)BomCR342; (1994)96BOMLR161; (1995)IILLJ514Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J. 1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal against order dated April 29, 1983 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay in Application (ESI) No. 27 of 1979. By the impugned order under appeal, the trial Court held that the head office/principal office and warehouse of the applicant company were not covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. By the said order, the trial Court further held that the establishments mentioned in para. 6 of the application (Exhibit C-1) were also not amenable to coverage under the said Act. By the said order, it was further declared that the applicant company was not required to comply with any provisions of the E.S.I. Act and/or the Scheme and/or the Regulations framed thereunder in respect of or in relation to any of the concerned establishments or the persons employed therein till the time the position disclosed in the application (Exh. C-1) subsisted. 2. Indian Sewing Machine Co. Ltd. is a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR616
A.V. Sawant, J.1. This appeal raises an important question of law as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the said Act'). In particular the question raised is as to the interpretation of the provisions of section 2(9) of the said Act defining the term 'employee'. By the impugned judgment dated 30th July, 1977, the application filed by the respondent-Company has been allowed and it has been declared that the claim made by the appellant-corporation in its letter dated 26th November 1975 was improper and illegal. A few facts may be stated as under :2. Admittedly the respondent-Company, viz., Messrs. Abu Marble Mining Private Limited, is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is dealing in marble and for that purpose, has established a factory at Motibag, Chembur, Bombay. It is not disputed that the employees at the said factory are covered by the said Employees' State Insurance Act. The respondent-Company rec...
Tag this Judgment!