AHMEDABAD MFG. & CALICO PTG. CO. LTD. versus RAM TAHEL RAMNAND & ORS.

AHMEDABAD MFG. & CALICO PTG. CO. LTD. versus RAM TAHEL RAMNAND & ORS.

The High Court correctly remanded the matter for decision on whether the garden maintenance was ordinarily part of the undertaking and whether the garden pertained solely to the appellant. The work of garden maintenance may be incidental to the main industry if it provides amenities for the employees. The decision of the Industrial and Labour Courts, based on a misconception of legal position, was rightly interfered with under Article 227.

Parties
Appellant: Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co. Ltd.; Respondents: Ram Tahel Ramnand & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 April 1972
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Gujarat High Court Judgment and Order Dated October 3, 1967 in Special Civil Application No. 380 of 1965, Pursuant to Certificate Under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Industrial Relations, Definition of Employee, Jurisdiction Under Article 227, Remand to Industrial Court
Labour Law Constitutional Law Industrial Relations Definition of Employee Jurisdiction Under Article 227 Remand to Industrial Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co. Ltd.

Appellant

Ram Tahel Ramnand & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Gujarat High Court Judgment and Order Dated October 3, 1967 in Special Civil Application No. 380 of 1965, Pursuant to Certificate Under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether malis employed under a contractor for garden maintenance adjacent to a factory are employees of the factory under s. 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether maintenance of a garden is ordinarily a part of the undertaking
  3. 3 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash and remand the decisions of the Labour and Industrial Courts and whether its order was a final order for purposes of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court correctly remanded the matter for decision on whether the garden maintenance was ordinarily part of the undertaking and whether the garden pertained solely to the appellant. The work of garden maintenance may be incidental to the main industry if it provides amenities for the employees. The decision of the Industrial and Labour Courts, based on a misconception of legal position, was rightly interfered with under Article 227.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order of the High Court remanding the matter to the Industrial Court is affirmed.