Case Law Details
M/s. Arihant Siddhi Co.Op. Hg. Soc. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Vishnu More & Ors (Bombay High Court)
The Labour Court appears to have been swayed by the fact that a few members of the society were carrying on business such as coaching classes and dispensary and the society was charging advertisement charges for the neon signs put up by the members. The Court was of the view that the society was thereby earning income and, in the premises, could not be termed as a mere housing society. The Court also observed that in the premises the services rendered by Respondent No.1 to the society and its members could not be termed as personal services. The Court observed that the judgment of Som Vihar Apartment Owners’ Housing Maintenance Society’s case accordingly had no application to the facts of the present case. There is a fundamental fallacy in this reasoning. As held by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply case when there are multiple activities carried on by an establishment, what is to be considered is the dominant function. In the present case, merely because the society charged some extra charges from a few of its members for display of neon signs, the society cannot be treated as an industry carrying on business of hiring out of neon signs or allowing display of advertisements. In the premises, the impugned award of the Labour Court suffers from a serious error of jurisdiction.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 State. Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(g), who are legal heirs of Original Respondent No.1, who have been brought on record by way of an amendment, are absent.
2. The petition challenges an award passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai in a reference made to it under the Industrial Disputes Act. The controversy concerns the claim of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service of original Respondent No.1. By the impugned award, the reference was allowed and reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service was ordered. That order was challenged in the present petition chiefly on the ground that the Petitioner, against whom the award was passed, is not an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
