Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948

Kishorebhai Khamanchand Goyal, a motor‑transport operator, was convicted under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 and challenged the conviction on the ground that the later Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (specifically s.37) had by necessary implication repealed the State Act. The Supreme Court examined th…

The Supreme Court examined applications by security agencies for exemption from the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. The State Government had rejected all exemption requests, citing a policy that granting exemptions would not be in the interest of the security guards…

The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board classified a lawyer's office as a commercial establishment and demanded commercial tariff for electricity consumption. The landlord, who owned the premises, challenged the demand in the High Court, which held that a lawyer's office is not a commercial establishment and the commercia…

The Union of India appealed a decision of the Central Government Labour Court which had granted overtime wages at double the ordinary rate to 78 employees of the India Security Press, Nasik, under s.59 of the Factories Act read with s.70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The appellants argued that the r…

Kirloskar Consultants Ltd, a consultancy firm registered as a commercial establishment under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, was informed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) that it was covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 as a 'shop'. The firm began paying contributions but lat…

The landlords sued the tenants for eviction under sections 16(1)(c), 16(1)(e) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, alleging illegal sub‑letting, nuisance from a food‑stuff business and non‑use of the premises as a book‑shop for more than six months before the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, but t…

Lipton India Ltd. and Brook Bond India Ltd., tea companies, maintained godowns in 1968 where a single salesman opened and closed the premises, loading tea onto a manually‑operated push‑cart for door‑to‑door sales. They sought clarification on whether such premises required registration under Section 7 of the Bombay Sho…

The S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees' Union challenged the closure of the company’s Churchgate marketing and sales division, arguing that the closure violated section 25‑0 of the Industrial Disputes Act and amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trad…

The dispute concerned whether Hundekaris, who act as clearing agents in vegetable markets, could be registered as "employers" under Clause 14 of the Vegetable Markets Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1985, made under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers Act, 1969. Th…