Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Nagpur, against the judgment of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2006. The Single Judge had upheld the order of the Industrial Court dated 17.12.2005 in Complaint (ULPN) No. 574 of 2002, which directed the APMC to pay subsistence allowance to its employee, respondent No. 2, in accordance with Clause 25(5A) of the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The core legal issue was whether the APMC, a body corporate constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, falls within the definition of 'industrial or other establishments' under Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, thereby making the Model Standing Orders applicable. The appellant argued that its service regulations prescribe only 50% subsistence allowance for the entire suspension period, and that the Model Standing Orders do not apply. The court, however, agreed with the Single Judge's interpretation that the verb 'produce' in Clause (f) of Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act includes the presentation of agricultural produce in the market yard, thus bringing the APMC within the definition. Consequently, the Model Standing Orders apply, and the employee is entitled to graded subsistence allowance as per Clause 25(5A). The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Applicability of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Definition of 'industrial establishment' - The definition of 'industrial establishment' under Section 2(e)(i) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 adopts the definition of 'industrial or other establishments' under Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The court held that the verb 'produce' in Clause (f) of Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act includes the act of presentation of agricultural produce in a market yard, thus bringing the Agricultural Produce Market Committee within the definition. (Paras 2-3)
B) Industrial Law - Subsistence Allowance - Clause 25(5A) of Model Standing Orders - The court upheld the Industrial Court's order directing the appellant to pay subsistence allowance in accordance with Clause 25(5A) of the Model Standing Orders, which provides for graded subsistence allowance (50% for first 90 days, 75% for next 90 days, and 100% thereafter) during suspension pending departmental enquiry. (Paras 2, 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nagpur, is an 'industrial or other establishment' under Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, thereby making the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applicable to it, and consequently whether the employee is entitled to subsistence allowance under Clause 25(5A) of the Model Standing Orders.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Single Judge dated 07.09.2011 in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2006 is upheld.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'industrial or other establishments' under Payment of Wages Act
- 1936
- Applicability of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946 to APMC
- Subsistence allowance under Model Standing Orders
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (01) 118
Letters Patent Appeal No. 49 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2006
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Prasanna B. Varale
Shri U.S. Dastane for appellant; Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1; Shri S.R. Bhongade for respondent No.2
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nagpur
1. The Hon'ble Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Nagpur Bench), Nagpur; 2. Shri Gunwant Gajanan Kakade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against judgment of Single Judge in Writ Petition challenging Industrial Court order regarding subsistence allowance.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and the order of the Industrial Court directing payment of subsistence allowance under Model Standing Orders.
Filing Reason
Appellant disputed the applicability of Model Standing Orders and the entitlement of respondent No.2 to graded subsistence allowance.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court order dated 17.12.2005 in Complaint (ULPN) No. 574 of 2002 directed appellant to pay subsistence allowance under Clause 25(5A) of Model Standing Orders. Single Judge dismissed Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2006 on 07.09.2011, upholding the Industrial Court order.
Issues
Whether the Agricultural Produce Market Committee is an 'industrial or other establishment' under Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
Whether the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 apply to the appellant's establishment?
Whether the employee is entitled to subsistence allowance under Clause 25(5A) of the Model Standing Orders?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that its service regulations prescribe only 50% subsistence allowance for the entire suspension period and that Model Standing Orders are not applicable.
Respondent No.2 contended that the appellant falls within the definition of 'industrial or other establishments' and thus Model Standing Orders apply, entitling him to graded subsistence allowance.
Ratio Decidendi
The definition of 'industrial or other establishments' under Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, includes establishments where agricultural produce is presented, as the verb 'produce' in Clause (f) has a broad meaning. Consequently, the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 apply to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, and the employee is entitled to subsistence allowance under Clause 25(5A).
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Single Judge has construed the said definition in Payment of Wages Act particularly Clause (f) therein to hold that use of verb 'produce' in said clause in juxtaposition with other words 'adapted or manufactured' necessarily indicated a broad meaning and hence act of presentation of vegetables or similar other agricultural produce in establishment i.e. market yard of APMC was sufficient to include it in that clause.
The Industrial Court has found that the appellant Market Committee has to pay subsistence allowance in accordance with the provisions of Clause 25 (5 A) of Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 to its employee respondent No.2.
Procedural History
The Industrial Court passed an order on 17.12.2005 in Complaint (ULPN) No. 574 of 2002 directing the appellant to pay subsistence allowance under Clause 25(5A) of Model Standing Orders. The appellant challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), which was dismissed on 07.09.2011. The appellant then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 49 of 2012 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Single Judge's judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: Section 2(e)(i)
- Payment of Wages Act, 1936: Section 2(ii)
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963:
