Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by the Maharashtra Agricultural Marketing Board challenging the orders of the Labour Court which held that the Board is an 'Industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondents, Vasant Vinayak Gangarde and Anand Pandurang Patil, were employees of the Board who raised demands for reinstatement with backwages. Their demands were referred for adjudication to the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 98 of 1995 and Reference (IDA) No. 403 of 1994 respectively. The Board raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court on the ground that it is not an 'Industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court rejected this objection, holding that the Board is an 'Industry'. The Board then filed the present writ petitions. The High Court noted that the Board is constituted by the Government of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1963. The Labour Court had relied on decisions of the Supreme Court to conclude that the Board is an 'Industry'. The High Court, in a common judgment, dismissed both petitions, affirming the Labour Court's finding that the Board is an 'Industry' under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act, thereby upholding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the references.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Industry - Section 2(j) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Maharashtra Agricultural Marketing Board constituted under Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1963 - The Board is an 'Industry' as it carries on systematic activities with the cooperation of employer and employees for the production and distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes - Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain references for reinstatement and backwages (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Agricultural Marketing Board is an 'Industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and consequently whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain references regarding reinstatement and backwages.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The Labour Court's orders holding that the Maharashtra Agricultural Marketing Board is an 'Industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are upheld.
Law Points
- Definition of Industry under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Jurisdiction of Labour Court
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act
- 1963
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 234
Writ Petition No.1152 of 1996 and Writ Petition No.1153 of 1996
Advocates for the petitioner absent; Mr. K.S. Bapat for respondent in W.P.1152/1996; Mr. S.S. Pakale for respondent in W.P.1153/1996
Maharashtra Agricultural Marketing Board
Vasant Vinayak Gangarde (in WP 1152/1996) and Shri Anand Pandurang Patil (in WP 1153/1996)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging Labour Court's order holding that the Maharashtra Agricultural Marketing Board is an 'Industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner Board sought to quash the Labour Court's orders holding that it is an 'Industry' and that the Labour Court has jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The Board challenged the Labour Court's preliminary finding that it is an 'Industry' under the I.D. Act, which would give the Labour Court jurisdiction to adjudicate the references for reinstatement and backwages.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 98 of 1995 and Reference (IDA) No. 403 of 1994 held that the Board is an 'Industry' under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.
Issues
Whether the Maharashtra Agricultural Marketing Board is an 'Industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner Board argued that it is not an 'Industry' under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The respondents argued that the Board is an 'Industry' and the Labour Court correctly held so.
Ratio Decidendi
The Maharashtra Agricultural Marketing Board, constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1963, is an 'Industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it carries on systematic activities with the cooperation of employer and employees for the production and distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes.
Judgment Excerpts
Admittedly the petitioner Board is constituted by the Government of Maharashtra under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1963.
In both the References a preliminary point regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the said Reference on the ground that the Board is not an 'Industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was raised.
Procedural History
The respondents raised demands for reinstatement with backwages, which were referred to the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 98 of 1995 and Reference (IDA) No. 403 of 1994. The Board raised a preliminary objection on jurisdiction. The Labour Court rejected the objection, holding the Board is an 'Industry'. The Board filed Writ Petition No.1152 of 1996 and Writ Petition No.1153 of 1996 challenging those orders. The High Court disposed of both petitions by a common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(j)
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1963:
