Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by The Saraswat Suburban C.H.S. Limited and others (petitioners) against Naresh Shyamlal Velendra (respondent) challenging the maintainability of a complaint of unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The petitioners are a cooperative housing society. The respondent employee had filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices. The core legal issue was whether a cooperative housing society can be considered an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so as to be amenable to the MRTU & PULP Act. The petitioners argued that the society is not an industry, relying on the recent judgment in Shantivan II Co.Op.Hsg. Society vs. Manjula Govind Mahida, which held that a cooperative housing society rendering services to its members is not an industry. The respondent contended that the society's activity of letting out its community hall to members and non-members for functions constituted a commercial activity, making it an industry. The court analyzed the predominant nature of the society's activities, applying the test from Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa. It held that the letting out of the community hall is a mere adjunct to the principal activity of providing housing services to members and does not change the character of the society. The court also rejected the respondent's reliance on Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar vs. Kannaded Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., noting that the case dealt with enforcement of personal service contracts and was not applicable. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the complaint, and held that the cooperative housing society cannot be arraigned as an industry under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Industry - Section 2(j) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Cooperative Housing Society - A cooperative housing society which is an association of flat owners and renders services to them is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The predominant nature of its activities is not commercial; letting out of community hall is a mere adjunct. (Paras 2-3) B) Unfair Labour Practice - Maintainability of Complaint - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Since the society is not an industry, a complaint of unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act is not maintainable against it. The ratio of Shantivan II Co.Op.Hsg. Society vs. Manjula Govind Mahida applies squarely. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a cooperative housing society can be arraigned as an 'industry' in a complaint of unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the complaint of unfair labour practice, and held that the cooperative housing society cannot be arraigned as an industry under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Law Points
- Cooperative housing society is not an industry under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Predominant nature test from Bangalore Water Supply
- Commercial activity as adjunct does not change character
- MRTU & PULP Act complaint not maintainable against such society
