Back
2006 Supreme(Bom) 1359
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(J.N. Patel, D. K. Deshmukh and Smt. Roshan Dalvi, JJ.)
KAY KAY EMBROIDERIES PVT. LTD. - Petitioner
V.
CLOTH MARKETS AND SHOPS BOARD and others - Respondents
Advocates appeared : J. P. Cama, Senior Counsel, A. K Jalisatgi, S. K. Talsania, Senior Counsel, Mohit Kapoor, Aditya Chitale, Anand Grover, Ms. Bharati Patil, Prakash Mahadik, S. C. Naidu, N. P. Dalvi, M. S. Karnik, P. K. Rele, R. P. Rele, Vinod Tayade, P~yush Shah, N. G. Chitre and M. S. Topkar, Smt. Lata Desai, Smt. Pallavi Divekar, S. R. Nargolkar, AGP, K. M. Naik, S. P. Dhulapkar, D. S. Joshi and Smt. M. Kajle, AGP
Headnote:Maharashtra Mathadi, Hammal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act (30 of 1969) - Section 2(11) - Expression "unprotected worker" in Section 2(11) implies every manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment, irrespective of whether he is protected by other labour legislations or not - "Unprotected workers" within the meaning of the Act are definitely not only those manual workers who are casually engaged. - Within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hammal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, "unprotected worker " means every manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment, irrespective of whether he is protected by other labour legislations or not and "unprotected workers" within the meaning of the Act are definitely not only those manual workers who are casually engaged. The petitioners are employers and entire argument of the employers has been that if the words used in Section 2(11) of the Act are given their literal meaning the interest of their regular manual workers would be adversely affected. Therefore, it can be assumed that the petitioners are concerned about the welfare of their regular manual workers. If that is so, then one can see to it that the manual workers who are said to be in their regular employment continue to get all the benefits to which they are entitled by continuing them as monthly workers even after those workers are registered under the Act. Provisions of the schemes show that on coming into force of the scheme only two additional obligations are cast. One on the worker and the other on the employer. The monthly worker has to get himself registered with the Board and the employer has to pay wages as fixed by the Board. The wages can be paid directly to the employees also. The monthly worker would continue to be under the disciplinary control of the employer and therefore all the labour legislations which apply to him before he was registered under the Act, will continue to apply to him and protect him. When a statute whether enacted by the Parliament or State Legislature applies to several classes of persons and subsequently due to coming into force of another enactment it ceases to apply to one of the classes of persons, it does not amount to repeal of the earlier enactment. The basic assumption that application of the Act to manual workers engaged in the scheduled employment would result in repeal of other labour legislations which may be applicable to them before their registration under the Act is wrong. The purpose of all the labour legislations, whether enacted by the Parliament or State Legislature is to prevent exploitation of the labour. The purpose of the Act is also the same. Therefore, there is no scope for any conflict between the Act and legislations enacted by the Parliament. Compared to all other legislations relating to labour, the Act would be special legislation dealing only with manual workers engaged in scheduled employment. Therefore it will prevail over all other labour legislations in the event of there being any overlapping or common field. If the provisions of Section 2(11) is read in the backdrop of statement of objects and reasons and the provisions in the Bill that was tabled before the Legislature, the intention of the Legislature becomes clear beyond doubt that the Legislature wanted to include within the definition of the term "unprotected worker" every manual worker engaged or to be engaged in the scheduled employment irrespective of the fact whether they are protected by other labour legislations or not. 2001 (2) Mh LJ 775 - Overruled; AIR 1989 SC 1698; AIR 1978 SC 548; (2003) 1 SCC 692 - Referred; (2005) 2 SCC 271; (2005) 8 SCC 534; AIR 1990 SC 781 - Relied on; 1994 (3) Bom CR 566 - Distinguished.
Precedent - It is with a view to achieve consistency in judicial pronouncements, the Courts have evolved the rule of precedents, principle of stare decisis etc. - These rules and principles are based on public policy and if these are not followed by Courts then there will be chaos in the ad ministration of justice.
Precedent - Principle of stare decisis - The expression "stare decisis" means to stand by decided cases to uphold precedents to maintain former adjudication - There is no question of principle of "stare decisis" operating in relation to judgment in which question in issue did not arise for consideration.
Maharashtra Mathadi, Hammal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act (30 of 1969) - Sections 2(11) and 2(12) - "Unprotected worker" and "worker" - If the definitions of words "unprotected worker" and "worker" are read literally by giving them the strict grammatical interpretation, it does not give riseto an absurdity or inconsistency - It subserves the purpose of the legislation and accordingly the benefit mean s for such worker who was covered by the Mathadi Act, 1969 - Interpretation placed by the Division Bench in Century Textile and Industries Limited and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2001 (2) Mh LJ 775 : 2000 (11) CLR 279 on the definition of the words "unprotected worker" and "worker" for the purpose of applicability to Mathadi Act, 1969 that it is only the casual workmen who come within the purview of the Act not correct and proper. 2001 (2) Mh LJ 775 : 2000 (II) CLR 279 (DB) - Overruled. Misc. P. No. 150 of 1973; Misc. P. No. 414 of 1973; W.P. No. 119 of 1979; 1994 (I) CLR 187; AIR 1955 Bom 113; Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 160 of 1975; AIR 1985 SC 1698; JT 1998 (4) SC 507; AIR 2004 SC 5009; (2005) 2 SCC 271; AIR 1987 SC 1454; 2004 (II) CLR 534 (SC); (2005) 12 SCC 778; AIR 1964 SC 1272; (2002) 5 SCC 111; (1996) 3 SCC 15; (2001) 4 SCC 262; AIR 2002 SC 3404; (2005) 8 SCC 534; AIR 1978 SC 548; (1990) 3 SCC 682; AIR 1990 SC 781; 1995 (2) Mh LJ (SC) 315 : 1995 (II) CLR 217 - Referred.
Maharashtra Mathadi, Hammal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act (30 of 1969) - Sections 3(2) and 22 - The object of the legislation is not only to secure benefit as regards the terms and conditions of services of the unprotected workers or to provide them with the benefits of provident fund, leave with wages, gratuity etc. - Its further object is also to provide for welfare, for health and safety measure and for ensuring an adequate supply and to full and proper utilization of such worker in such employments to prevent avoidable unemployment connected with the aforesaid matters.
Interpretation of Statutes - Statements of objects and reasons - Reference to objects and reasons can be made for the limited purpose of finding out the intention of the Legislature which obtained at the time of introduction of statute and which led to introduction of legislation and for ascertaining the extent and the urgency of the evil which was sought to be remedied by a particular statute. - Rule of interpretation that the statements of objects and reasons for introducing the Bill in Legislature is not admissible as an aid to construction of statute as enacted, far less can it control the meaning of actual words used in the Act. It can only be referred to for limited purpose of ascertaining the circumstances which activated the sponsor of Bill to introduce it, and the purpose of doing so. The preamble of statute, which is often described as a key to understanding of it, may legitimately be construed to solve any ambiguity or to ascertain or fix the meaning of words in their context which otherwise bear more meaning than one. It may afford a useful assistance as to what the statute intends to reach, but if enactment is clear and unambiguous in itself then no preamble can vary its meaning. While construing the statute, one has to bear in mind the presumption that the legislature does not intend to make any substantial alteration in existing law beyond which it expressly declares or beyond the immediate scope and object of the statute. Therefore, at the most reference to object and reasons can be made for the limited purpose of finding out the intention of the Legislature which obtained at the time of introduction of statute and which led to introduction of legislation and for ascertaining the extent and the urgency of the evil which was sought to be remedied by a particular statute.
J. N. PATEL, J. (For self and SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) : - The Division Bench of this Court while considering a group of petitions filed by the petitioner employers relating to the application of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Mathadi Act, 1969" for the sake of brevity and convenience) felt that principally two questions of law arise for the determination of the Court in those proceedings treating the writ petition of M/s Kay Kay Embroideries Pvt. Ltd., (Writ Petition No. 7671 of 2005) as a lead petition. The Bench was of the view that the interpretation placed in the judgment of this Court in Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001(2) Mh.L.J. 775 = 2000 (II) CLR 279 relating to section 2 definitions defining the words "unprotected workers" (section 2(11) and "worker" (section 2(12) of the Mathadi Act, 1969 is in conflict with the statutory provisions enacted by the legislature and that the correctness of the decision would, therefore, merit examination by the Larger Bench. The two questions of law for determination of the controversy were formulated after considering the various provisions of the Mathadi Act, 1969 and the Schemes enacted thereunder like the Cloths Markets and Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1971 and the Grocery Markets, Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1970 and Iron and Steel Scheme which have been made in exercise of the power conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Mathadi Act, 1969 and are operative in their respective fields of employment of manual workers in scheduled employment or group of scheduled employments for the purpose of effective implementation of provisions of the Mathadi Act, 1969 and the various schemes formulated under the said Act.
2. The Bench examined the issue in the backdrop of the previous decision of this Court in C. Jairam Pvt. Ltd., vs. The State of Maharashtra, Misc. Petition No. 150 of 1973 dated 19th April, 1974 wherein the constitutional validity of the Act and the Scheme was in question before the Court, namely, the Cotton Merchants Scheme of 1972 and a subsequent decision rendered in the case of S. B. More vs. State of Maharashtra, Misc. Petition No. 414 of 1973 dated 24th April, 1974 in the context of the Khokha and Timber Unprotected Workers Scheme, 1973, which upheld the validity of the said Act and the Scheme except found to be and held offending Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India. It also referred to the decision of the Division Bench dated 16th January, 1980, Lallubhai Kevaldas vs. The State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 119 of 1979 in the backdrop of the statement of objects and reasons underlined in the enactment of Mathadi Act of 1969 and after examining the definition of the term "unprotected worker" defined in section 2(11) of the said Act and "worker" as defined in section 2(12), the Bench found that once the Act defines the expression "unprotected workers" the definition in the Act provides a statutory dictionary. The Court is under bounden duty to apply the provisions of the said Act to such worker who stands covered by the definition, and, therefore, it was not open to the Court to adopt the meaning of the expression "unprotected worker" to apply only to the casually engaged workmen who would come within the purview of the Act, which is at variance with what has been laid down by the competent legislation and it felt that the judgment of the Division Bench in Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra does not advert to the definition of section 2(11) in the judgment in its proper perspective. The Division Bench observed that the definition merely indicates that "unprotected workers" are manual workers who are engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment and, therefore, the Division Bench felt that t
