KHEMABHAI VIRABHAI Vs. ASHOK MILLS COMPANY LIMITED AHMEDABAD
LAWS(GJH)-1988-9-19
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 06,1988

KHEMABHAI VIRABHAI Appellant
VERSUS
Ashok Mills Company Limited Ahmedabad Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

K. H. DAVE V. BHALAKIA MILLS CO. LTD. [REFERRED]
AHMEDABAD MFG. AND CALICO PRINTING CO. LTD. V. THEIR WORKMENS [REFERRED]
SHAKRA CHUNTHA AND ORS. V. MANEKLAL HARILAL MILLS CO. LTD. AND ORS. [REFERRED]
AHMEDABAD MFG. AND CALICO PRINTING CO. LTD. V. RAMTAHEL RAMANAND [REFERRED]
RAMKRISHNA RAMNATH V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [REFERRED]
CHIMAALAL B. JOSHI V. NAGRASHINAH,2ND LABOUR COURT [REFERRED TO]
MARKET COMMITTEE AMRITSAR V. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT AMRITSAR [REFERRED]
P. K. SINGH V. PRESIDING OFFICER [REFERRED]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED VS. K L KHARBANDA [REFERRED]
CENTRA BANK OF INDIA LIMITED VS. P S RAJAGOPALAN [REFERRED]
BOMBAY GAS CO LIMITED VS. GOPAL BHIVA [REFERRED]
AHMEDABAD MANUFACTURING AND CALICO PRINTING CO LIMITED AHMEDABAD VS. RAM TAHEL RAMNAND [REFERRED TO]
SARASPUR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. RAMANLAL CHIMANLAL [REFERRED]
USHA RANI DATTA AAYA ATTENDANT VS. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT INDORE [REFERRED]
P K SINGH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
YAD RAM VS. BIR SINGH [REFERRED]
RAMTAHEL RAMANAND V. AHMEDABAD MFG. AND CALICO PRINTING CO. LTD. [REFERRED]
MANAGEMENT OF JAWAHAR MILLS VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MADRAS [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

A.M.AHMADI - (1.)This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Labour Court Ahmedabad dated Ja 30/01/1985 dismissing the petitioners application preferred under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called the I. D. Act). Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are as follows.
(2.)The Board of Directors of Ashok Mills Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Companies Act passed a resolution dated 17/05/1950 to sell a certain parcel of its land to the three incorporated companies namely Arvind Mills Ltd. Arun Mills Ltd. and Ashok Mills Ltd. for the construction of a joint Hospital for the employees of the said three Mill Companies. The possession of the said parcel of land was delivered in 1953 for carrying out the above objective and a formal dated of conveyance was executed later on 28/12/1953 whereby the said parcel of land was sold to the said three Mill Companies for Rs. 12 584 only. Under the said conveyance the three Mill Companies became the co-owners of the said land the Arvind Mills Ltd. having eight annas (50%) share in a rupee while the other two Mill Companies each having four annas (25%) share in a rupee. A copy of the said deed of conveyance is produced at Annexure B to the petition. A joint Hospital known as The Arvind Ashok Arun Mills Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the Hospital) came to be constructed on this land from the funds provided by the said three Mill Companies in proportion to their shares in the land under the conveyance deed.
(3.)The employees of the Hospital through the petitioner-Union preferred an application under sub-sec (2) of Sec. 33 of the Act alleging that the second respondent-Hospital was an undertaking of Ashok Mills Ltd. and was managed and run by the said Mill Company the employees of the said Mill Company and its sister concerns namely Arvind Mills Ltd. and Aruna Mills Ltd. are given treatment in the said Hospital and hence the Hospital staff for all intents and purposes belongs to the establishment of Ashok Mills Ltd. and is entitled to salary and allowances and other benefits so admissible to similar employees of the said Mill Company. The application was supported by two annexures. In Annexure `A to the application particulars regarding date of entry in service and the salary received by each employee were set out while in Annexure `B the dues calculated from the date of entry of each employee upto April 1980 were set out and it was contended that since the claim put forward by the Hospital employees was in respect of the difference in wages between the wage actually paid and the wage to which they were legally entitled i.e. money claim an application under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 33C of the Act was maintainable and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide the same and to direct the Mill Company to pay the said difference or such amount as it considered reasonable.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.