The Mathadi Act does not make Managing Director or Directors personally liable to pay the dues which the Board is empowered to recover from the employer.

JUDGMENT

M.S.KARNIK,J. - The Petitioners challenge the notices dtd. 6/1/2000 received by the Petitioners from the Tahasildar, Labour Dues Recovery, Mumbai demanding payment of Rs.9,38,153.00 towards dues of workers of Suvidha Warehousing Company (Private) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") and threatening the attachment and sale of the personal property of the Petitioners for recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue. The Petitioners have also challenged the fnal order dtd. 6/11/1999 under sec. 13 of Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Mathadi Act") and the Recovery Certifcate dtd. 30/12/1999 issued by the Respondent No. 3-Kirana Bazar and Dukane Mandal i.e. Grocery Market & Shop Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board").

2. The Petitioners were at all material times the Directors of the Company. Under the provisions of the Mathadi Act and the scheme framed thereunder, both the employees and the employers are required to be registered with the Respondent No. 3 - Board. The Company was the registered employer with the Respondent No. 3-Board. For loading and unloading of goods, a toli of workers was assigned by the Respondent No. 3-Board to the Company and their dues are required to be deposited by the Company with the Respondent No. 3-Board. On failure to pay the dues, the Respondent No. 3-Board is empowered to issue Recovery Certifcate and request the Collector to recover the dues of the employer as arrears of land revenue under sec. 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

3. The issue arising in the Writ Petition is whether the Petitioners who are the Directors of the Company are personally liable to pay the dues of the workers under the Mathadi Act.

4. On the issue whether the Directors of the Company can be made liable, learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the following judgments:

a) Suresh Tulsidas Kilachand and Ors. vs. Collector of Bombay and Ors., (1984) LAB. I.C. 1614,

b) Kundan Singh vs. Moga Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. & Ors., (1987) 62 Comp. Cases 600 (Single Judge Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court),

c) Tikam Chand Jain vs. State Government of Haryana and Anr. (1987) 62 Comp. Cases 601,

d) Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. S.K. Aggarwal and Ors., (1998) II LLJ. 794,

e) Raghunath Bareja and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors., (2007) 1 Comp L.J. 108 (SC),

f) Vimalkumar Ravji Shah vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Solapur and Ors., (2009) II CLR 577,

g) Tristar Consultants vs. V Customer Services India P. Ltd. and Anr. (2009) 149 Comp. Cases 714 (Delhi)

5. Learned Amicus Curiae on the other hand had relied upon the following judgments:

a) R. B. Shah vs. V. R. Savarkar and Others, KHW Ltd. (1952) High Court, Bombay by Division Bench

b) State of U.P. and Others vs. Renusagar Power Co. and Others, (1988) 4 SCC 59

c) J. K. Industries Ltd. and Others vs. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers and Others (1996) 6 SCC 665

d) Chandubhai Virjibhai Gokani and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Another (2009) 149 Comp Cas 720 (Guj)

e) Bhuwalka Steeel Industries Limited vs. Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and Another (2010) 2 SCC 273,

f) Pepsico India Holding Private Limited vs. Grocery Market and Shops Board and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 493

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the learned AGP and learned Senior Counsel who was appointed as Amicus Curiae. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and having perused the materials on record, we are of the view that the Petitioners cannot be made personally liable to pay the dues of the workers for the following reasons.

7. It is an admitted position that the Company was "registered employer" with the Respondent No. 3-Board and is liable to pay the dues of the workers under the Mathadi Act.

8. According to the Petitioners they were not in day-today management of the Company and prior to issuing the impugned notices, no n