TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision Quashing Labor Orders, Emphasizes Pragmatic Industrial Law</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the orders of the Second Labour Court and the Industrial Court. The case was remanded to the ... - Issues Involved:1. Locus standi of the applicants.2. Definition and scope of 'employee' and 'employer' under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.3. Applicability of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act to the activities of the appellant company.4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.5. Validity of the certificate of fitness for appeal under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Locus Standi of the Applicants:The appellant company contended that the applicants, being employed by a contractor and not directly by the company, had no locus standi to file the application. The Second Labour Court and the Industrial Court both dismissed the applications on the ground that the applicants were not performing work that was ordinarily a part of the undertaking. The High Court disagreed, stating that the definition of 'employee' under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act was broad enough to include workers like gardeners who provide amenities to the mill workers, even if employed through a contractor.2. Definition and Scope of 'Employee' and 'Employer' under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act:The appellant argued that the respondents did not fall within the definition of 'employee' as they were not directly employed by the company, but by a contractor. The High Court, however, interpreted the Act to include workers employed through a contractor if the work performed was reasonably attributable to the undertaking in its usual and ordinary course. The High Court emphasized a pragmatic and practical approach, considering the broader context of social justice and the complex nature of modern industrial operations.3. Applicability of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act to the Activities of the Appellant Company:The appellant contended that the Act only applied to specific departments directly involved in textile manufacturing and not to ancillary activities like gardening. The High Court rejected this narrow interpretation, stating that various incidental and connected activities, such as maintaining a garden for the welfare of employees, could fall within the ambit of the Act. The High Court directed the Industrial Court to reconsider the nature of the work done by the respondents to determine if it fell within the scope of 'ordinarily part of the undertaking.'4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution:The appellant argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 by reversing the findings of the Industrial Court and the Labour Court. The High Court clarified that its role under Article 227 was to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals acted within their authority and not to correct mere errors. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's jurisdiction, noting that the High Court's intervention was justified to correct a misconception of the legal position by the lower courts.5. Validity of the Certificate of Fitness for Appeal under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution:The appellant questioned the competence of the High Court to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal, arguing that the impugned order was not a final order. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court should ideally provide reasons for granting such a certificate, but it found that the High Court's decision to certify the case was within its judicial discretion. The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court's order, which finally settled some points affecting the rights of the parties, could be considered a final order for the purpose of appeal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to quash the orders of the Second Labour Court and the Industrial Court. The case was remanded to the Industrial Court for a fresh decision in light of the High Court's observations. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a realistic and pragmatic approach to industrial law, considering the broader context of social justice and the complex nature of modern industrial operations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
