D. K. DESHMUKH, J.: - The Hon'ble Chief Justice has constituted this Bench because the Division Bench of this Court has referred following question for consideration by the Larger Bench :

"In view of the statutory definition of the expression "unprotected worker" in Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, is the interpretation placed by the Division Bench in Century Textile & Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000(11) CLR 279 on the aforesaid expression that it is only casually engaged workers who come within the purview of the Act, correct and proper?"

2. The relevant developments leading to the Division Bench referring the aforesaid question are that the Legislature of the State of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for the sake of brevity), which came into force on 13 - 6 - 1969. The State Government in exercise of its power conferred by the Act framed the Cotton Merchant Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 1972; (hereinafter referred to as Cotton Merchant Scheme). The constitutional validity of the Act and the Cotton Merchant Scheme was challenged by the employer in an establishment dealing with yarn - waste by filing Misc. Petition No.150 of 1973. That petition was decided by the learned single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rege) by judgment dated 19th April, 1974. The learned Judge held the Act and the scheme to be constitutionally valid except for clause (n) framed by subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Act and clause 6(11)(v) read with clauses 33 and 43 of the Cotton Merchant Scheme.

3. Misc. Petition No.414 of 1973 was filed in this Court by the employer engaged in Khokha and Timber Market challenging the & Shops Labour Board constitutional validity of the Act and the Khokha and Timber Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 1973. That Petition was decided by order dated 24th April, 1974 by the same learned Judge. The learned single Judge followed his earlier judgment dated 19th April, 1974 in Misc. Petition No.150 of 1973 and held the Act and the Scheme to be constitutionally valid except the same provisions which were found to be invalid by the earlier judgment.

4. The learned single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Savant) of this Court while deciding the criminal revision application No.160 of 1975 and criminal revision application No.161 of 1975 by judgment dated 24th November, 1975 also considered the scheme of the Act and the Bombay Iron and Steel Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1970 to decide the challenge that the provisions of the Act are repugnant to the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and found that there is no repugnancy in the two enactments. The learned single Judge found that the Act and the scheme cover the subjects and encompasses area which is not covered by the Contract Labour Act.

5. The constitutional validity of the Act was also considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1l9 of 1979, M/s. Lallubhai Kevaldas & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Decided on 16 - 11980. Perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench in Lallubhai' s case shows that the Division Bench held the Act to be constitutionally valid mainly relying on the two judgments of the learned single Judge (Mr. Justice Rege), one in Misc. Petition No.150 of 1973 and the other in Misc. Petition NoA14 of 1973.

6. Writ Petition No.1117 of 1988 and Writ Petition No.1118 of 1988 were filed before this Court by the employers who were engaged in the Cloth markets, which is also scheduled employment. Those two writ petitions were decided by the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 10 - 2 - 2000, Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Maha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document