Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mangalvedha Mathadi Hamal V ... vs The Collector, Solapur District, ... on 12 June, 2024

Author: M.M. Sathaye

Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M. Sathaye

2024:BHC-AS:23633-DB

                                                  1                 30. WP 6826.21.doc

             JPP

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 6826 OF 2021

             Mangalvedha Mathadi Hamal V Asarankshit
             Kamgar Sanghatana, Mangalvedha                  ... Petitioner

                    V/s.

             The Collector, Solapur and Ors.                 ... Respondents

             Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for the Petitioner
             Ms. Lata Desai with Pallavi Divekar i/b. M/s. Divekar & Co. for the
             Respondent No.2
             Ms. R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent - State

                                                CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
                                                       M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE : 12 JUNE 2024 P.C. :-

This Writ Petition is filed by the Union of Mathadi Workers situated at Taluka - Mangalvedha, District - Solapur making a grievance that the Respondent No.2 - Board established under the Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1969 is not looking into the situation where the employers who are bound to engage the mathadi workers are failing to do so.
::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2024 15:56:18 :::

2 30. WP 6826.21.doc

2. In short, the Petitioner has called upon the Respondent No.2 - Board to perform its statutory duty. Reply affidavit is filed by the Respondent No.2 - Board stating that the grievance of the Petitioner as regard its eighteen members was found to be justified and necessary directions were issued by the Board.

3. The issue now is too general. It is not possible for us to further monitor and issue a general sweeping direction that the Respondent No.1 should keep performing its statutory duty. If and when a specific instance arises, it is always open to the Petitioner - Union to approach the Respondent No.2 - Board pointing out that the provisions of the Act of 1969 are not being implemented.

4. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

                               M.M. SATHAYE, J.                    NITIN JAMDAR, J.

            Digitally signed
JYOTI   by JYOTI
        PRAKASH
PRAKASH PAWAR
PAWAR   Date: 2024.06.18
        17:33:58 +0530




                         ::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2024                  ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2024 15:56:18 :::