VIBHA SYNTHETICS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-9
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: NAGPUR)
Decided on
October 25,2005
VIBHA SYNTHETICS PVT.LTD.
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
THE N.M. WADIA CHARITABLE HOSPITALS AND ORS. V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA V. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
BIJAY COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS. STATE OF AJMER [REFERRED TO]
CROWN ALUMINIUM WORKS VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
STANDARD VACUUM REFINING CO OF INDIA VS. ITS WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
U UNICHOYI VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
BHIKUSA YAMASA KSHATRIYA VS. SANGAMNER AKOLA TALUKA BIDI KAMGAR UNION [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD MILLOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. TEXTILE LABOUR ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BHAVAN BOARDING AND LODGING BANGALORE THE ALL MYSORE HOTELS AND ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF SHRI CHALTHAN VIBHAG KHAND UDYOO SAHAKARJ MANDLI LIMITED MANAGEMENT OF KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LIMITED BARDOLI TALUKA KHAND KAMDAR UNION VS. G S BAROT MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT:ITS WORKMEN:SHRI MANDHI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD [REFERRED TO]
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. TIFFINS BARYTES ASBESTOS AND PAINTS LIMITED:BARIUM CHEMICALS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CYNAMIDE INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN VS. REPTAKOSBRETT AND COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT VS. WEST BENGAL REGISTRATION SERVICE ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED BOMBAY HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED BOMBAY VS. B N DONGRE:HINDUSTAN LEVER EMPLOYEES UNION:HINDUSTAN LEVER EMPLOYEES UNION BOMBAY:HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF RAILWAY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SANGLI DISTRICT POWERLOOM OWNERS ASSOCIATION LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)ALL these petitions challenge the validity of the notifications issued by the respondent-State dated 30th June, 2004, thereby fixing the minimum rates of wages for the employees employed in employments covered under Entry No. 65 of Schedule I and the notifications dated 20th July, 2004, thereby fixing the minimum rates of wages for shops and commercial establishments, hospitals, not falling under entry No. 6 in part I of Schedule, and Paper and Paper Board Industries.
(2.)SINCE a common question as to whether the minimum wages as fixed by the State Government by the impugned notifications are sustainable in law, is involved in all these petitions, they were heard together and are decided by the common judgment.
(3.)SINCE there was agreement between the learned counsel for the parties that the arguments advanced in support of the challenge and in support of the defence of the notifications dated 30th June, 2004 pertaining to residuary employments, would cover all the matters, we will only refer to the facts relevant insofar as the impugned notification dated 30th June, 2004, fixing minimum rates of wages for employees employed in the said employments, is concerned.
(2.)SINCE a common question as to whether the minimum wages as fixed by the State Government by the impugned notifications are sustainable in law, is involved in all these petitions, they were heard together and are decided by the common judgment.
(3.)SINCE there was agreement between the learned counsel for the parties that the arguments advanced in support of the challenge and in support of the defence of the notifications dated 30th June, 2004 pertaining to residuary employments, would cover all the matters, we will only refer to the facts relevant insofar as the impugned notification dated 30th June, 2004, fixing minimum rates of wages for employees employed in the said employments, is concerned.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.