Back
2000 Supreme(Bom) 93
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.J. Pandya Smt. Ranjana Desai, JJ.
The Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. another..... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1117 of 1988, decided on 10-2-2000.
Advocates appeared :
J.P. Cama with K.P. Anilkumar i/b Ms. W. Menezes, for petitioners.
S.M. Dikshit, for respondent No. 1.
Ms. Lata S. Desai, for respondent No. 2.
Headnote:Maharshtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers( Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1969
Section 1(4A) and Schedule Item No.5- Employment in grocery market- Notification relating to the employment in grocery market or shop applies to entire thane and raigad district however the factory run by the petitioner for making men made fiber, held not covered under the said notification nor it can be extended unless notified under Section 1(4A).
Maharshtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers( Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1969
Sections 2(11) and (12)-Unprotected workers- Where the workers in the factory were employed through contractor , such worker cannot be termed as un protected workers under Section 2(11) according to which unprotected workers are manual worker engaged or to be engaged or any Schedule Employment. The definition of worker in section 2(12) , refers to those persons who are not employed by any employer or contractor but are working with the permission of employer. Therefore the Act will not deal with the employees engaged on monthly basis.
2.The Act contemplates constitution of a Board to manage the scheme which, in turn, was sanctioned by the State Government after entering into a consultative exercise with Advisory Committee, as per section 14 of the said Act, as per also the Representation of the Employee/Employees and other persons connected with the field. About this aspect, there being no dispute, we are not entering into further details.
3.The petitioners herein are having a factory, dealing with essentially in the product of man-made fibres which is used in the production of man-made yarn, later on made into clothes. The factory itself is confined to what is known as manufacturing of fibres.
4.Fibre is sought to be covered under the provisions of the said Act and the scheme framed thereunder. The concerned Scheme is known as "Cloth Markets and Establishments Board (For Greater Bombay, Thane and Raigad Districts"). The scheme has been brought into force somewhere in the year 1971 and has been corrected from time to time. At the time of argument, the said scheme corrected upto December, 1989 was given to us, and was relied on by both the sides for the purposes of making their respective submissions.
5.So far as the bio-chemical products are concerned, reliance is placed by the respondents on a scheme relating to Grocery. In order to understand the aforesaid schemes, as well as their applicability, first we will turn to the relevant provisions of the Act.
6.The definition clause in section 2 sub-section (10) of the said Act, refers to the Scheme. The Scheme means a scheme made under this Act. The Scheme is made for the purpose of ensuring regular employment who are not given protection and the benefit of enactment. Definition of the word 'worker' is to be found in sub-section (12) of section 2 of the said Act which refers to the "Scheduled Employment". Clause 11 contains definition of "Unprotected worker" which means a manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged directly or through any agency to do manual work in any scheduled employment.
7.For the purpose of Scheduled Employment, one has to turn to its definition clause which reads as under :
"Scheduled Employment means any employment specified in the schedule hereto or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment."
The employment once included in the schedule therefore not only covers the employment itself but also covers any process or branch of the work forming part of such employment. It is, therefore, widely worded for the purpose of the said Act.
8.When the petitioners were approached by the respondents under the provisions of the said Act calling upon them to get their contract workmen registered, under the Grocery Board, the dispute arose between them. The submissions made by the petitioners were turned down including the request of exemption of section 72 of the said Act. The action on the part of the petitioners to claim exemption would not necessarily mean that they accept the applicability of the said Act and claim exemption.
9.However, while filing the petition, there are clear dispute as to the applicability of the Act itself. This applicability is disputed on two counts, (i) periodical extension of the provisions of the Act made applicable from time to time by the State Government, and (ii) according to the petitioners, it does not cover the area where the factory of the petitioners is situated. It is in Kalyan Taluka of Thane District. In other words, the applicability of the Act is disputed on the basis of territorial exclusion of the area from the purview of the Act till, by a specific notification, it is extended by the State Government under the provisions of the said Act.
10.As can be seen from sub-section (4-A) of s
