Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.50 seconds)The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
The Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948
Section 38 in Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading ... vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading Limited ... on 3 April, 1986
5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that after coming into force of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 the employer cannot show favouritism to one set of workmen and give them better benefits than the workman. He submits that if the employer indulges in such action, the provisions of Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act are attracted. He then submits that when the mill workers are entitled to continue in service under the standing orders applicable till the age of 63 years, the workmen employed in the retail cloth shop would have to be treated in the same manner although the retail cloth shop is not covered by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. According to the learned Advocate for the sake of receiving benefits, the coverage by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act is not necessary as the employer cannot have two sets of service conditions for workmen in the establishment. He relies on the judgment in the case of S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union v. S. G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited and Anr., 1986 I LLJ 490 to submit that although the mill is registered under the Factories Act and the retail cloth shop is registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, it does not follow that for providing certain benefits to the workmen employed in the factory or shop as the case may be the registration under a specific Act is important. According to the learned Advocate, merely because registration is under a particular Act it would not mean that the benefits to the employees in the different establishments should vary especially if they are doing the same kind of work.
The Factories Act, 1948
Mathuradas Mohota College Of Science vs R.T. Borkar And Ors. on 30 September, 1996
Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mathuradas Mohta College of Science v. R. T. Borkar and Ors., (1997)2 Mh.L.J. 168 to submit that since there is a statutory limit prescribed within which a complaint can be filed, it is necessary to file an application for condoning the delay which the petitioner has not done. According to him, the Industrial Court has rightly held that the complaint is barred by limitation because the cause of action arose when the petitioner received the retirement memo on 26-11-1989 and not only after the actual retirement.
Section 38 in The Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
National Textile Corpn. (South Mah.) ... vs Ashok Shridhar Athavale And Others on 18 December, 1991
7. It is undisputed that the petitioner was working in the retail cloth shop. He continued to work there till the age of 60 years and was retired after he attained that age. The workmen in the retail cloth shop are not governed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Textile Corporation (supra). Therefore, the standing orders framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act would also not apply to the workmen employed in the retail cloth shop. The contention of the workmen that he should have been continued in service till 63 years of age since others have been continued in the mill till that age under the Standing Orders Act, therefore, cannot be accepted. The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that despite the Bombay Industrial Relations Act not being applicable, there cannot be two sets of service conditions in an establishment and, therefore, the employees even in the retail cloth shop ought to be retired at the age of 63 years if found efficient, cannot be accepted. The retail cloth shop of employees and the employees in the mill have two different sets of conditions of service. The mill workers are governed by the standing orders framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The retail cloth shop employees admittedly in view of the judgment of this Court are covered by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the standing orders framed thereunder. Therefore, to submit that the same set of service conditions are applicable is not correct. Whatever conditions of service have been laid down either in the contract of service or due to practice, usage, custom will apply to the employees in the retail cloth shop. Had there been more than 50 workmen in the retail cloth shop, the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act would have been applicable in view of the provisions of Section 38(B) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. Admittedly, in the retail cloth shop, with which we are concerned, less than 50 workmen were employed and therefore, the model standing orders would not apply mutatis and mutandis to the retail cloth shop employees as Section 38(B) would not then come into operation. Whether there was in fact a practice or usage or custom to adopt the provisions of the model standing orders is not apparent as there is no evidence to that effect on record. This is obviously because the respondent proceeded on the premise that the Bombay Industrial Relations Act not being applicable, the standing orders framed thereunder would have no application and, therefore, the petitioner would not be able to continue till the age of 63 years.
1