Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4 The Board is constituted under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 ("Mathadi Act"). The Clearing and Forwarding Unprotected and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1991 (the Scheme) is also framed for proper implementation of the Mathadi Act.

7 After a discussion, finally a settlement agreement (The Agreement) was signed under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act") on 1 December 2001 between the Union and other registered employers, including the Petitioner. The agreement was approved and recognized by the Board, since the terms and conditions therein were found to be fair, legal and reasonable. As per the agreement, the rate of piece rate wages was revised from Rs.9.10 per MT to Rs.12.30 per MT. The agreement provided for minimum guaranteed wages. The agreement was to be effective from 1 November 1998, but the revised wage was effective from 1 November 2001 to 31 December 2003. The arrears of the wages for the period between 1 November 1998 to 31 October 2001 were to be paid in lump sum, subject to mutual decision between employees' and the dgm 6 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw employer, before 31 December 2001. There was no mutual lump sum amount fixed/settled for the stated arrears. In fact, there was no final settlement took place before the time fixed. Such agreement itself has not attained finality, therefore, the basis of impugned orders and/or the exparte fixation of amount is an issue in both these Petitions, apart from power of Board under Section 13 of the Mathadi Act.

23 The Board, in view of above, ought to have first decided on merits by giving full opportunity to the Petitioner, before passing the impugned order of imposing liability to the extent of Rs.75,48,467.25/-. No reason whatsoever, given about the effect of settlement under the ID Act and its enforceability under the Mathadi Act. The submission that the Special Act should prevail and/or the Mathadi Act should prevail over the provisions, including the schemes and therefore, the Board has jurisdiction to pass such order, contrary to the settlement against the Petitioner by imposing even penalty interest is unacceptable. Both the orders passed by the Authorities, have not dealt with this aspect of jurisdiction and their power, inspite of binding effect of settlement under Section 18 of the ID Act. The provisions are available under the ID Act for its execution. 




    24              The submission so made by the learned counsel appearing 




     dgm                                  19                      judgment-wp2560.07.sxw

for the Respondents by filing affidavit and by giving justification referring to the Judgments Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union Vs. Grocery Markets & Shops Labour Board & Ors. 1 and Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Indian Gum Industrial Ltd. & Ors2 are of no assistance. Those judgments are distinguishable on the facts, as well as, on law. There was no such situation of execution by the Board of settlement by and between the parties under the ID Act and/or even of similar nature. The effect of Special Law prevailing over the General Law, as settled, needs no discussion. In the present case, the admitted position of law and the agreement between the parties and for want of specific reasons by both the authorities while passing/imposing liability with penalty interest under the Mathadi Act, distinguishes the case in hand in every aspects.