Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Mahila Ayog vs Veer Singh Parihar on 4 February, 2026 cites

Mahesh Bhargawa vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 24 February, 1993

7. In the present case so far as the question that whether MP state Women's Commission falls within the definition of industry is concerned, some analogy can be drawn by the status of MP State Legal Services Authority which is also performing the advisory work in the work of legal assistance. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Mahesh Bhargava v. State of MP and others reported in 1993 MPLJ 586 has held that the activity of State Legal Services Authority (then called as MP Legal Aid and Legal Advice Board) is a welfare activity but it does not qualify for exemption from definition of industry only on the ground that it was constituted in pursuance to Directive Principles of State Policy. It was held by the Division Bench that sovereign functions have to be strictly understood and then only they would qualify for exemption but the welfare activities by Government or statutory bodies cannot be said to be sovereign functions of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-02-2026 18:32:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512 5 MP-2402-2021 the State so as to qualify for exemption from scope of Section 2(j) of I.D. Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978

13. Applying the aforesaid ratio in the case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra), once the commission employees the employees, then to the extent of employing the employees for discharging the menial, ministerial or administrative functions, the commission cannot wriggle out of mandatory provisions of ID Act 1947. Therefore, this court upholds the findings of the Labour Court that the MP State Women's Commission is an industry within definition of section 2-j so far as its obligations towards the employees Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-02-2026 18:32:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512 9 MP-2402-2021 which its employs are concerned. It is further noted by this Court that the findings as contained in the award in paragraph 7 do not match with the finding as summarised in the tabular form in paragraph. However, looking to the detailed discussion in paragraph 7, it is seen that the Labour Court has held the Commission to be an industry and the summarised reply to issue number 3 in paragraph 5 in tabular form seems to be in clerical mistake.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 985 - M H Beg - Full Document
1