TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Sections on 'Unpaid Accumulations' in Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act Ruled Unconstitutional; Provisions on Fines Upheld.</h1> <h3>BOMBAY DYEING &MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS</h3> BOMBAY DYEING &MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS - 1958 AIR 328, 1958 SCR 1122 Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(b) of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953, regarding 'unpaid accumulations.'2. Constitutionality of Section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(a) of the Act regarding 'fines realized from employees.'Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(b) of the Act regarding 'unpaid accumulations':Main Argument:The appellant contended that Section 3(1) of the Act is repugnant to Article 31(2) of the Constitution as it deprives employers of money without compensation, merely because it represents wages due to employees. The appellant argued that money is property, and the employer's title to the money is not extinguished merely because they owe wages.Court's Analysis:- Property and Ownership: The court acknowledged that money is property and that the employer does not lose ownership of the money merely because they owe wages. The effect of Section 3(1) is to take away the employer's money.- Article 31(2) and Acquisition: The court examined whether Section 3(1) constitutes acquisition or taking possession of property under Article 31(2). The court referenced prior decisions (State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and Dwarkadas Shrinivas of Bombay v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.) which held that substantial interference with property rights falls within Article 31(2).- Article 31(2A): The court noted that Article 31(2A), introduced by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, does not apply retrospectively, and therefore, the rights must be decided based on the law as it stood before the amendment.- Money as Property: The court considered American jurisprudence, which generally holds that the power of eminent domain does not extend to taking money. The court also referenced Indian case law (State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sri Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga) which supported this view.- Article 19(1)(f): The court discussed whether the Act could be supported under Article 19(5) and concluded that the Act could not be upheld under either Article 31(2) or Article 19(5) as it takes away the employer's property without providing a discharge from their obligations to the employees.Conclusion:The court held that Section 3(1) of the Act, insofar as it relates to 'unpaid accumulations,' is unconstitutional and void as it violates Article 31(2) and Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.2. Constitutionality of Section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(a) of the Act regarding 'fines realized from employees':Main Argument:The appellant argued that the Act deprives it of its rights as a trustee of the fines realized from employees and that the fines should benefit the employer's own employees rather than a broader group.Court's Analysis:- Trust Fund: The court acknowledged that under Section 8 of the Payment of Wages Act, the fines are a trust fund for the benefit of employees, and the employer is a bare trustee with no beneficial interest.- No Beneficial Interest: Since the employer has no beneficial interest in the fines, the court found no substantial deprivation of property that would violate Article 31(2) or Article 19(1)(f).- Modification of Trust: The court held that the Legislature, which created the trust, could modify it, and the employers are not aggrieved by this modification.Conclusion:The court held that Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(a) of the Act, regarding fines realized from employees, are valid and do not violate the Constitution.Final Judgment:The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953, are unconstitutional and void insofar as they relate to 'unpaid accumulations.' However, the provisions regarding 'fines realized from employees' are valid. The appeal was allowed in part, and the respondents were directed to pay half the costs of the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
