Quashed

Alpesh Zatakia Proprietor, M/S Ashish Intermational Co. v. Genesh Ramesh Madan

Bombay HC15 Sept 2008WP/2109/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an Award of the First Labour Court directing payment of back wages and compensation. The single-judge Bench held that a one-man proprietary concern did not constitute an 'industry' and ruled there was no valid industrial dispute, thereby setting aside the Award.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Labour Court is set aside; Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause 'A'.

Alpesh Zatakia Proprietor, M/S Ashish… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.2109/2006

¶3

Alpesh Zatakia Proprietor of M/s Ashish International Company PETITIONER

VS.

Ganesh Ramesh Madan

RESPONDENT

Ms.Rita Joshi with Mr.A.D.Shetty for the petitioner Mr.Vasant J.Amberkar for respondent

¶8

CORAM : S.A.BOBDE , J. DATE : 15^th SEPTEMBER,2008.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] By this petition the petitioner has challenged the Award of the First Labour Court,Mumbai dated 25/11/2005 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.60,000/-towards back wages to the respondent and in addition ,Rs.60,000/-to the respondent towards compensation and legal dues instead of reinstatement with continuity of services . The petitioner is a one man proprietory concern. The proprietor is in the business of export documentation . The respondent was engaged by the petitioner to do the work of peon such as delivery of letters,documents, cheques,etc..

¶11

2] In this background though the petitioner denied that it is an industry .The Labour Court has held to the contrary . According to the Labour court the work of preparation of documents was a systematic

¶12

¶13

activity . Since the petitioner relied on the co-operation of the respondent for delivery of the letters the Labour Court has held the activity to be an Industry. It appears that the Labour Court fell in to an error of law in holding the petitioner to be an Industry . In Banglore Water Supply and Sewserage Board Vs. A.Rajappa & Ors., reported in AIR 1978 S.C.548 the Supreme Court has observed as follows :

¶14

The result of this discussion is that the Solicitors' case (AIR 1962) SC 1080 ) is wrongly decided and must, therefore, be overruled. We must hasten ,

¶15

however,to repeat that a small category ,perhaps large in numbers in the muffasil ,may not squarely fall within the definition of industry .A single lawyer , a rural medical practitioner or urban doctor with a little assistant and/or menial servant may ply a profession but may not be said to run an industry.That is not because the employee does not make a contribution nor because the profession is too high to be classified as a or industry with its commercial connotations but because there is nothing like-organised labour in such employment.The image of industry or even quasi-industry is one of a plurality of workmen,not an isolated or single little assistant or attendant. The latter category is more or less like personal avocation for livelihood taking some paid or part-time from another.The whole purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act is to focus on resolution of industrial disputes and regulation of industrial relations and not to meddle with every little carpenter in a village or blacksmith in a town who sits with his son or assistant to work for the customers who trek in. The ordinary spectacle of a cobbler and his assistant or a cycle repairer with a helper,we come across in the pavements of cities and towns,repels the idea of industry and industrial

¶16

¶17

dispute.For this reason ,which applies all along the line,to small professions petty handicraftsmen,domestic servants and the like,the solicitor or doctor or rural engineer,even like the butcher,the baker and the candle-

¶18

stick maker,with an assistant or without,does not fall within the definition of industry.In regular industries,of course,even a few employees are enough to bring them within S.2(f) .Otherwise automated industries will slip through the net .''

¶19

Above view has been followed by this Court in judgment of Division Bench Umashankar Jaswal Vs.Royal Auto Centre, 2007,I C.L.R.,928.

¶20

3] In this view of the matter there was no valid industrial dispute before the Labour Court .The order of the Labour Court is hereby set aside .Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 'A'.

¶21

(S.A.BOBDE,J.)

Alpesh Zatakia Proprietor, M/S Ashish Intermational Co. v. Genesh Ramesh Madan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alpesh Zatakia Proprietor, M/S Ashish Intermational Co. v. Genesh Ramesh Madan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.B. Investments and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

Serene Investments and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

Star Chemicals (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs A.R.A. Shaikh

Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Anr.

Mrs.Deepa Bajaj. Vs Vijay Khanna and Anr.