Summary: The Bombay High Court decided on a case involving the Apsara Co-operative Housing Society and Vijay Shankar Singh. The court ruled that the society is neither a "business" nor a "company," affecting the application of certain worker laws.
In 2025, the Apsara Co-operative Housing Society, based in Mumbai, filed two requests against Vijay Shankar Singh. The society challenged the decisions from the Labour Court and the Controlling Authority regarding claims for retirement money and other payments made by Singh, their former Building Manager.
The main issues were whether the housing society could be classified as a "business" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and a "company" under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1971. These classifications would determine if the Labour Court and Controlling Authority had the power to decide on the claims.
On January 5, 2026, Judge Sandeep V. Marne delivered the judgment. The court concluded that:
Not a Business: The society's main job is managing the building for its members, not engaging in regular business activities. Thus, it does not qualify as a "business."
Not a Company: The society is not involved in business or trade, which is necessary to be considered a "company" under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act.
For the Society: Mr. Mahesh Shukla argued that the society's activities do not meet the definitions of "business" or "company." He referred to previous court decisions supporting this view.
For Singh: Mr. Ashish Nagwekar argued that the society conducts business activities, like running a clubhouse and renting space for telecom towers, which should classify it as a business.
The court reviewed several past cases and determined that the society's activities were mainly for the benefit of its members and did not count as a business. The presence of telecom antennas and a clubhouse did not change this classification.
The court canceled the previous orders from the Labour Court and Controlling Authority. It ruled that the claims for retirement money and other payments were not valid, as the society did not fit the necessary definitions. The requests made by Singh were dismissed, and the court did not require either party to pay costs.
This judgment clarifies the legal standing of cooperative housing societies in relation to worker laws, emphasizing their non-business nature when serving their members' interests.
