Bombay High Court
Bhartiya Janata Mathadi General Kamgar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 22 February, 2022
Bench: Dipankar Datta, M. S. Karnik
23. wp 7475-21.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by URMILA
URMILA PRAMOD
INGALE
PRAMOD Date:
INGALE 2022.02.24
14:17:11
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 7475 OF 2021
Bhartiya Janata Mathadi General
Kamgar Sangh thr. its General Secretary ..Petitioner
vs.
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents
------------
Mr. R. M. Haridas a/w. Mr. Mahadev P. Ghadge for the
petitioner.
Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for State.
Mr. Sanjay P. Shinde for respondent no.5.
Mr. Nitin V. Gangal a/w. Mr. Ashok D. Kadam a/w. Ms.
Prerna Shukla, for respondent no. 7 - CIDCO.
Mr. Arshad Shaikh a/w. Mr. Prashant S. Goyal for
respondent no.6.
Mr. Ranjit A. Agaste a/w Mr. Vinsha Acharya a/w. Mr.
Krishnan Iyer i/b. Ms. Namrata Agaste for respondent no.8.
------------
CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 22, 2022.
P.C. :
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner takes an exception to
the order passed by the respondent no.2, Hon'ble Minister
of Labour, Maharashtra State granting exparte stay to the
orders dated March 2, 2021, March 25, 2021 and May 12,
2021 passed by the respondent no. 5-Board.
1/6
23. wp 7475-21.doc
2. The petitioner-union claims to represent the workers
of gut nos. 42 to 51 registered with respondent no.5-
Mumbai Iron and Steel Labour Board under the provisions
of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual
Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969
(hereafter "the said Act", for short). Pursuant to the order
of allotment passed by respondent no. 5-Board, the
members of the petitioner-union (gut nos. 42 to 51) have
been working at the premises of the respective employers
mentioned in the allotment order.
3. The respondent no. 6 is a union representing some
workers registered with respondent no. 5-Board. The
respondent no. 6 raised dispute about non-application of
the scheme namely Bombay Iron and Steel unprotected
Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme
1970 (hereafter "the Scheme", for short) to the employers
to whom workers of gut nos. 42 to 51 have been allotted by
respondent no. 5-Board. Suffice it to observe that the
applications were made by the workers of gut nos. 42 to 51
to the respondent no. 5-Board for allotment to the
concerned employers. Vide orders dated March 2, 2021 at
page 27, March 25, 2021 at page 32 and May 12, 2021 at
page no. 39, the applications made by the members of the
petitioner-union came to be allowed by the respondent no.
5-Board and they were allotted the work/employment with
the employers mentioned in the said orders. The
application made by workers of gut no. 545 was rejected.
2/6
23. wp 7475-21.doc
4. The respondent no. 6 -Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi and
General Kamgar Sena which claimed to represent the
workers adversely affected by the orders dated March 2,
2021, March 25, 2021 and May 12, 2021 passed by the
Board in favour of members of the petitioner-union, filed
an appeal under the provisions of the said Act before the
respondent no. 2, the Hon'ble Minister. By the impugned
order, the Hon'ble Minister stayed the orders dated March 2,
2021, March 25, 2021 and May 12, 2021 passed by
respondent no. 5-Board. According to the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the impugned order is an exparte order
passed without impleading the petitioner as a party, though
the orders impugned in the appeal were in favour of the
petitioner, made on applications filed at their instance
before the respondent no. 5-Board.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
perused the copy of the petition and the exhibits. We have
also gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of
the respondent no. 6.
6. That the workers of gut nos. 42 to 51 are the
members of the petitioner-union is not controverted by the
contesting respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 6 filed an
appeal before the Hon'ble Minister challenging the orders
dated March 2, 2021, March 25, 2021 and May 12, 2021
passed by the respondent no.5- Board, which order was in
favour of the workers of gut nos. 42 to 51. Perusal of
appeal memo at page 122 reveals that the respondent no. 6
3/6
23. wp 7475-21.doc
challenged the order passed by respondent no. 5 - Board
without impleading the petitioner/workers of gut nos. 42 to
51. The exparte interim order passed by the Hon'ble
Minister deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.
7. Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel on behalf of respondent
no. 6 contended that the allotment of the work by
respondent no. 5-Board in favour of workers of gut nos. 42
to 51 is illegal as the scheme itself is not applicable to the
workers/employer to whom workers of gut nos. 42 to 51
have been allotted. The appeal before the Hon'ble Minister
is at the instance of respondent no.6. This contention can
well be raised and decided in the appeal which is pending
before the Hon'ble Minister.
8. The impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Minister
came to be stayed by this Court on November 3, 2021 and
interim relief so granted continues to remain in operation
even as of today. Since we expressed our inclination to set
aside the impugned order, Mr. Shaikh learned counsel for
respondent no. 6, states on instructions, that the
respondent no. 6 would implead the petitioner as party
respondent in the appeal before the Hon'ble Minister. He,
however, requests that respondent no. 6 may be allowed to
renew its prayer for grant of interim relief which the Hon'ble
Minister may consider on its own merits after hearing the
petitioner. He also requested expediting the hearing of the
appeal itself.
4/6
23. wp 7475-21.doc
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
appeal filed by the respondent no. 6 before the Hon'ble
Minister itself is without jurisdiction and that the Hon'ble
Minister has no power under section 7(4) of the said Act to
entertain an appeal against the orders passed by the
respondent-Board. In our opinion, this is a contention
which can be raised by the petitioner before the Hon'ble
Minister in the course of hearing of the appeal.
In this view of the matter, we pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the respondent no.2, Hon'ble Minister (Labour), in appeal no. 2021/Pra-Ka 293-Kamghar-5 communicated to the petitioner by respondent no. 4 vide order dated October 20, 2021 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The statement made by learned counsel, Mr. Shaikh on behalf of respondent no. 6 that the petitioner will be impleaded as a party-respondent in appeal no. 2021/Pra-Ka 293-Kamghar-5 is accepted. The respondent no. 6 to take steps in that regard.
(iv) In the event the respondent no. 6 applies for grant of ad-interim/interim relief, the respondent no. 2 may consider the same expeditiously on its own merits after due notice to all concerned and upon hearing the petitioner.
5/623. wp 7475-21.doc
(v) The respondent no. 2 is requested to decide the appeal bearing no. 2021/Pra-Ka 293-Kamghar-5 itself as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of 16 weeks from today.
(vi) The parties undertake to co-operate with the respondent no. 2, the Hon'ble Minister in the expeditious disposal of the appeal and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
(vii) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All contentions are left open.
10. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
6/6