The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory definition and interpretation of the expression 'unprotected worker' under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, emphasizing the inclusive nature of the definition and the legislative intent to regulate the employment and welfare of manual workers in scheduled employments.

JUDGMENT :

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.—Principally two questions of law have arisen for the determination of this Court in these proceedings:

(i) Whether the expression "unprotected worker" means (as the Petitioner submits), a worker not protected by labour legislation or whether the expression means a manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment as defined in Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969; and

(ii) Whether a Mathadi worker who has been engaged directly by an employer would fall outside the purview of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969.

2. We shall in the course of the order briefly advert to the relevant provisions of law having a bearing on the subject matter of this case and of the precedents in the field. For the reasons which we would indicate, we are respectfully of the view that the interpretation placed in a judgment of this Court in Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2000 (2) CLR 279 on the provisions of the Act, is in conflict with the statutory provisions enacted by Parliament and that the correctness of the decision would, therefore, merit a re-examination by a larger Bench .II

3. Writ Petition 7671 of 2005 has been argued before the Court as a lead petition and some facts would have to be elucidated in order to appreciate the controversy. The Petitioner has a factory at the MIDC Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai, in which, according to the Petitioner, job work of embroidery is carried out on cloth supplied by customers. The Petitioner also has a Unit at Koparkhairane and another Unit at Lower Parel, Mumbai. From the factory of the Petitioner, after the work of embroidery is carried out, each consignment of cloth goes to the mending unit at Koparkhairane where the work is checked for defects and where defects are rectified. About 34 employees are engaged in the factory, who are stated to be direct and regular employees. A Sales Office is at Lower Parel and the Petitioner has another Storing and Mending Unit at 23, Kewal Industrial Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai. An Inspector of the Cloth Market and Shops Board, Mumbai (the First Respondent) visited the Storage-cum-Mending Unit on 28th March 2001 and noted that even though the employer was not registered, he was engaging registered workers of Toli No. 532-B assigned by the Board. On 19th June 2001, the Petitioner got its establishment at 23, Kewal Industrial Estate registered under the Mathadi Act. Thereupon, the First Respondent allotted Toli No. 532-B to the Petitioner. The Third Respondent, which is a Trade Union, made a demand that Mathadi work at the Units at Koparkhairane and Mahape should also be got done from Toli 532-B. On 14th December 2001, a notice was issued by the First Respondent, calling upon the Petitioner to entrust the Mathadi work at the Mahape factory to the workers of Toli 532-B and to start remitting their wages to the First Respondent. The Petitioner registered its Koparkhairane Unit with the First Respondent on 14th September 2002. Toli 532- B was assigned to that Unit. Thereupon, there was a demand from the Union that the Petitioner should engage the workers from Toli 532-B also at its Mahape factory. A notice was issued to the Petitioner on 17th June 2004 to which there was a reply. On 16th May 2005, an Inspector of the First Respondent visited the establishment. On 20th July 2005, an order came to be passed directing the Petitioner to engage Mathadi workers of Toli 532-B for carrying out Mathadi work at the Mahape factory failing which the Board would be constrained to launch a prosecution. Subsequently, on 14th September 2005, the Petitioner was called upon to deposit the wages for the months of June and July 2004. That has led to the institution of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. III

4. On behalf of the Petitio