The Mathadi Act and the Grocery Scheme are applicable to the petitioner's factory, which is engaged in the manufacture of hazardous chemicals. The petitioner is not required to register with the Board or employ only workers registered under the Mathadi Act. The Grocery Scheme and its amendments were duly laid before the two Houses of the Legislature and that there has been faithful compliance with the terms of sub-section (2) of section 28 of the Mathadi Act.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT:

1. This writ petition dated 17th November 2009 is at the instance of a company engaged in the manufacture of hazardous chemicals. It was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, years after the Mathadi Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereafter “the Mathadi Act” for short) was enacted.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to show-cause notices dated 20th November, 2006 (Ext. G) and 27th February, 2008 (Ext. S) issued by an Inspector and Secretary of the Grocery Markets and Shops Board, Greater Mumbai (hereafter “Board” for short), respectively, alleging noncompliance on the part of the petitioner to comply with clauses 14, 30 and 31 of the Grocery Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1970 (hereafter “Grocery Scheme” for short). Also, under challenge are a letter of allotment dated 5th April, 2007 (Ext. M) and demand letter dated 14th September, 2009 (Ext. U), both issued by the Secretary of the Board.

3. The aforesaid challenge primarily rests on the ground that neither the Mathadi Act nor the Grocery Scheme are applicable to the petitioner’s factory.

4. The pleaded case in the writ petition, in brief, reveals this:

(a) An Inspector visited the factory of the petitioner and prepared a report. It recorded that the employer has not registered the establishment and that there were mathadi workers working for him.

(b) The petitioner replied to this vide letter dated 11th June 2001 pointing out that the workers engaged by them were all regular permanent workers of the petitioner and that the workers engaged for loading and unloading operations were the regular fully protected workers of the company.

(c) Thereafter, for 5 years, the Board did not visit the petitioner’s establishment nor made any comment on its workers. Suddenly, there was a visit by the Inspector on 8th November 2006 and he filed a visit report. It was alleged that the workers engaged by the petitioner are employed through a contractor and that they were not receiving wages and other benefits to which they are entitled.

(d) Vide letter dated 17th November 2006, the petitioner denied the allegations issued in the above notices and indeed denied that they were engaging the workers purported to be listed by the said Inspection report.

(e) On 20th November 2006, the Board issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for alleged breach of clauses 14, 30 and 31 of the Grocery Scheme. The clauses referred to the need for registration of the employer and a further requirement that the petitioner should only engage mathadi workers.

(f) By letter dated 2nd December 2006, the petitioner replied to the said show cause notice.

(g) By demand letter dated 2nd December 2006 the Board wrote to the petitioner insisting that registration under the Mathadi Act was necessary. By letter dated 17th January 2007, the petitioner pointed out that most of the materials handled by it was in liquid form and was transferred mechanically through pipes and tankers. Further that any work of minimum loading/unloading work was being done by the petitioner’s regular workers.

(h) On 5th April 2007, the Board wrote to the petitioner alleging that many workers had complained regarding non-registration of the workmen. It was further alleged that 18 out of 37 complaining workers were registered with the Board and a demand was now made to pay wages as fixed by the Board together with levy.

(i) By a letter dated 17th April 2007, the petitioner replied to the Board’s letter dated 5th April 2007 pointing out inter-alia that they were dealing with hazardous chemicals and, therefore, needed their own workers having necessary training in handling such hazardous products. It was also pointed out that at a meeting with the representatives of the Board, the petitioner’s officers were pressurized to write “we have asked the contractor to get regist