Legis Orbis

Tag: Labour

  • Co-operative housing societies are neither “industries” nor “establishments” under labour and gratuity laws

    Bombay High Court
    Apsara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Vijay Shankar Singh
    Writ Petition Nos. 3908 of 2025 and 4146 of 2025
    Date of Judgment: 05.01.2026
    Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:41

    Ratio:
    A co-operative housing society formed for residential management is neither an “industry” nor an “establishment”; labour and gratuity laws are inapplicable.

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE / PAYMENT OF GRATUITY – Co-operative housing society – Status as ‘industry’ and ‘establishment’ – Sections 2(j) and 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 2(4) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 2017 –
    Writ petitions filed by the petitioner-Society challenging orders of the Labour Court and the Controlling Authority entertaining proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Held, a co-operative housing society formed by flat owners for collective ownership and maintenance of residential premises does not carry on any trade, business, or commercial activity and is neither an “industry” nor an “establishment.” Incidental income from telecommunication towers or use of common facilities does not alter the dominant non-commercial character of the society. Authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Payment of Gratuity Act lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. Impugned orders set aside. Writ petitions allowed.

  • Industrial tribunals cannot order regularisation beyond the scope of reference or sanctioned posts

    Bombay High Court
    Bank of Baroda v. Shri Shashikant Pitale & Ors.
    Writ Petition No. 3063 of 2014
    Date of Judgment: 12.12.2025
    Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:24539

    Ratio:
    Industrial tribunals cannot direct regularisation or reinstatement beyond the scope of reference; compensation may substitute reinstatement for daily wagers.

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE – Illegal termination – Casual/daily-wage workmen – Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Reinstatement and regularisation – Scope of reference – Writ petition filed by the Bank challenging the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai, holding termination of respondent daily-wage peons illegal and directing reinstatement with back wages and regularisation. Held, findings of violation of Sections 25F and 25G did not call for interference. However, reinstatement is not automatic for daily-wage workers after long lapse of time; lump-sum compensation is the appropriate relief. Further held, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing regularisation, the issue being beyond the scope of reference and contrary to settled law, including Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. Award modified by setting aside reinstatement, back wages, and regularisation and substituting lump-sum compensation. Writ petition partly allowed.