IMPORTANT POINTS
Grocery Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1970 is not ultra vires Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969.
Expression “products including fertilizers” covers the expression “chemical products including fertilizers”.
Establishment includes, apart from place of manufacture, precincts of factory and transportation within the precincts.
State may make composite scheme covering various employments contained in more than one entry of the Schedule of the Act, 1969.
Social statutes should be construed in an expansive manner.
Contemporanea exposition is applicable to ancient laws, not to modern enactments.

Headnote:(a) Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 – Schedule, Item 5 – Residuary clause – Covers employment in factories in connection with loading, unloading, etc. carried on by workers not covered by any other entries in the Schedule – Grocery Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1970 dealing with manufacture of petro chemicals in factories – Held intra vires the Act. (Para 7)
       (b) Grocery Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1970 – Clause 2(1)(f) r/w Section 1(4A) table column 4 item 5, Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 – Expression “products including fertilizers” of the Act – Wider than the expression “chemical products including fertilizers” of the Scheme – Covers the expression of the Scheme – Scheme, held, intra vires the Act. (Para 8)
       (c) Interpretation – Words and Phrases – “Chemical Products” and “petro chemical products” – “Petro chemical products” would be a species of the genus “chemical products”. (Para 9, 10, 11)
       (d) Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 – Sections 3 and 4 – Section 3(1) providing for registration of unprotected workers “in any scheduled employment or employments” – Section 4(1) empowering State Government to make one or more Schemes for any scheduled employment or group of scheduled employments – State may make composite scheme covering various employments contained in more than one entry of the Schedule of the Act – Scheme for Grocery markets not ultra vires the Act. (Para 12)
       (e) Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 – Section 2(4) – Establishment – Includes, apart from place of manufacture, precincts of factory and transportation within the precincts – Loading and unloading by manual labour, held, part of manufacturing process – Section 2(11) covers all “unprotected workers”. (Para 13, 15)
       (f) Interpretation – Social statutes – Should be construed in an expansive manner. (Para 16)
       (g) Labour laws – Principal employer – Appellant company getting registered under 1969 Act admitting to be employing workers through contractor-societies – Cannot turn back and deny employing contract labour – Held, is principal employer. (Para 19)
       (h) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Section 30(1) – Provisions of Act, 1970 inconsistent with those of Act, 1969 – No plea regarding repugnancy raised before High Court – Further, section 30(1) entitling workers to existing benefits if better than those under Act, 1970 – Appellant not pleading before High Court that benefits under Act, 1970 are better than those already being availed by workers – Plea cannot be raised before Supreme Court. (Para 20)
       (i) Interpretation of statutes – Contemporanea exposition – Determining meaning of a word at the time of enactment – Applicable to ancient laws – Not to modern enactments. (Para 27)
       (1962) 3 S.C.R. 146 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       Under Section 5 of the 1969 Act, if any question arises whether any scheme applies to any class of unprotected workers, the matter shall be referred to the State Government and the decision of the State Government which shall be taken after consulting the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 14 shall be final.
       The Advisory Board and Govt. has come to the conclusion that Grocery market and shops unprotected workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act 1970 is applicable to Supreme Petrochem Ltd. as also the Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd.
       The said order was challenged before the Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R.F. Nariman, J.

1. These appeals involve an interpretation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as “the 1969 Act”) read with the Grocery Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1970 Scheme”). The brief facts necessary for a decision in Civil Appeal No.10000 Of 2010 (Supreme Petro-Chem Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others) are that under Section 5 of the said 1969 Act, if any question arises whether any scheme applies to any class of unprotected workers, the matter shall be referred to the State Government and the decision of the State Government which shall be taken after consulting the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 14 shall be final. By an order dated 24.6.2008, the State Government after referring to submissions from the appellants as well as submissions from the Board, held:-

“4. Govt. has analyzed overall situation, documents application of the organization dated 01.03.2003 and information about the product and its raw material. Govt. has come to the following conclusion:

a. Company is manufacturing Polystyrene.

b. For manufacturing styrene and Polybutadin are used as raw material. Polybutadin comes in rubber form and it is not natural rubber.

c. Polystyrene is a hard plastic.

d. Polystyrene is not a petrochemical product but a chemical product.

e. Even Polystyrene manufacturing is considered as petrochemical production it is finally a chemical production only. The material used to manufacture the product is also chemical.

f. There is no written reference in the Mathadi Act that petrochemical should be kept out of the act but chemical itself includes everything.

g. Mathadi Act and scheme is for the betterment of workers and purpose of the scheme is to make applicable to the chemical manufacturing companies. It is not mentioned in the scheme that petrochemical products should be excluded and as petrochemical is not mentioned in the scheme so the scheme is not applicable to the said organization is not acceptable.

5. In the situation Samitte and Govt. has come to the conclusion that Grocery market and shops unprotected workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act 1970 is applicable to Supreme Petrochem Ltd.

6. In the company loading unloading work of chemical product and its raw material is carried out. And with respect to this Mathadi kind of work is carried out in the company. As said by the company this work is carried out by two Cooperative societies. These societies do the work by employing the workers and get compensation from the company. Company says that these employees get the facilities like Provident fund and others. But in the report filed by the mandal on 20.09.2006 this statement has not been proved. As per the decision given by Hon. High Court in 2006 (3) CLR PG 999, there is no meaning to what company is saying. Instead of that it proves that in the said company Mathadi kind of work carries out.

8. In this situation Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act 1969, Grocery Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of employment and welfare) Scheme 1970 is applicable to the said organization. Therefore, application given under section 5 of Mathadi Act is rejected by the Government.”

2. The said order was challenged before the Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 10.2.2009 after holding:-

“4. It is rather difficult to digest the arguments of the learned counsel. Basically, what we find is that the petitioners are manufacturing polysterene and polysterene is a combination of styrene and polybutadin. Polybutadin comes in rubber form and is not a petrochemical though it is not a natural rubber. Styrene is one of the by-product of the petrochemical which is used by the pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 146

Cases Referred (1)