Case Note & Summary
The Bharatiya Friends Co-operative Housing Society Limited filed two writ petitions challenging the judgment and order of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos.121 of 1990 and 154 of 1990, and the order of the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No.136 of 1995. The Labour Court had held that the Petitioner-Society is an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the society had committed unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d), and (e) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Industrial Court confirmed the finding that the society was an industry, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 548. The Petitioner-Society, which is exclusively a housing society with 49 flats and engages employees such as watchmen and liftmen, contended that a housing society cannot be termed an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court noted that this issue is no longer res integra and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Management of SOM Vihar Apartment Owners Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. v. Workmen C/o. Indian Labour Union, (2001) 9 SCC 646, which held that a housing society engaging employees for maintenance and watch and ward is an industry. The court found that the Petitioner-Society engages employees for similar purposes and therefore falls within the definition of industry. Consequently, the court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The court did not interfere with the findings of unfair labour practices as they were not challenged on merits.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Industry - Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Cooperative Housing Society - The issue was whether a cooperative housing society, exclusively a housing society with 49 flats and engaging employees like watchmen and liftmen, constitutes an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held that the issue is no longer res integra and relied on the precedent in Management of SOM Vihar Apartment Owners Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. v. Workmen C/o. Indian Labour Union, (2001) 9 SCC 646, to conclude that such a society is an industry. The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a cooperative housing society, which engages employees such as watchmen and liftmen, can be termed an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court that the Petitioner-Society is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court did not interfere with the findings of unfair labour practices as they were not challenged on merits.
Law Points
- Definition of industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Cooperative housing society as an industry
- Unfair labour practices under MRTU & PULP Act
- Schedule IV Items 1(a)
- (b)
- (d)
- (e)
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 201
Writ Petition No.1001 of 1997 and Writ Petition No.1180 of 1997
Mr. R.S. Pai for Petitioner, None for Respondents
The Bharatiya Friends Co-op. Housing Society Limited
Bombay Labour Union & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the judgment and order of the Labour Court and Industrial Court holding that the Petitioner-Society is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act and has committed unfair labour practices.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner-Society sought to quash the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court which held that the society is an industry and had committed unfair labour practices.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner-Society was aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court that it is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that it had committed unfair labour practices under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos.121 of 1990 and 154 of 1990 held that the Petitioner-Society is an industry and had committed unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d), and (e) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No.136 of 1995 confirmed the finding that the society is an industry, relying on Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 548.
Issues
Whether a cooperative housing society, which engages employees such as watchmen and liftmen, can be termed an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioner-Society argued that a housing society cannot be termed an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Respondents (Bombay Labour Union) did not appear, but the Labour Court and Industrial Court had found the society to be an industry based on the Bangalore Water Supply case.
Ratio Decidendi
A cooperative housing society that engages employees for maintenance and watch and ward purposes falls within the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as held by the Supreme Court in Management of SOM Vihar Apartment Owners Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. v. Workmen C/o. Indian Labour Union, (2001) 9 SCC 646.
Judgment Excerpts
These Petitions challenge the judgment and order of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos.121 of 1990 and 154 of 1990.
This issue is no longer res integra.
In the case of Management of SOM Vihar Apartment Owners Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. v/s. Workmen C/o. Indian Labour Union, (2001) 9 SCC 646, the Supreme Court has held that a housing society which engages employees for the purpose of maintenance and watch and ward is an industry.
Procedural History
The Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos.121 of 1990 and 154 of 1990 held that the Petitioner-Society is an industry and had committed unfair labour practices. The Petitioner filed Revision Application (ULP) No.136 of 1995 before the Industrial Court, which confirmed the finding that the society is an industry. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1001 of 1997 and Writ Petition No.1180 of 1997 before the Bombay High Court, which were dismissed on March 28, 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(j)
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Schedule IV, Items 1(a), (b), (d), (e)
