Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, Writ Petition is heard finally and decided at the stage of admission.

2. In this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, challenged the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2016 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Satara in Appeal (MMH) No. 1 of 2015 whereby the learned Member, Industrial Court, Satara has set aside the order dated 30 th July, 2015 passed in Complaint (MMH) No. 1 of 2015 and has 1 of 7 WP2526_2016.doc remanded it to the Labour Court to try Complaint no. 1 of 2015 afresh. The orders are passed under Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "Mathadi Act").

3. Respondent no. 1/complainant is an inspector under the Act. The petitioner/accused no.1 is a factory, which is under obligation to Regulation Employment of Unprotected Workers through Mathadi Board. A complaint was filed by the respondent no. 1 under sections 17, 17A and 17B of the Act and Clause 43 of scheme Satara Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, against the petitioner, as the provisions under the scheme and Act were breached by the petitioners. On visit of the respondent no. 1/complainant on 5th March, 2014, he came across the illegalities in the employment of the workers and breach of the scheme, therefore, the notice was given to the petitioners/accused. However, they did not comply as per the inspection remark and contravened the provisions of clause 14 and 30(1) of the said scheme. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, Satara instead of passing order under section 200 of Cr. P.C. gave notice to the 2 of 7 WP2526_2016.doc accused for filing say and after considering the said say and applicability of Section 5 of Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, dismissed the complaint by order dated 30th July, 2015.

4. The respondent no. 1 has challenged the said order before the Member, Industrial Court, Satara by filing Appeal (MMH) No. 1 of 2015 under section 17C(1)(b), 17D and 17F of the Mathadi Act. The said Appeal was allowed by order dated 28 th April, 2016 by Member, Industrial Court, Satara. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. The learned Member, Industrial Court, Satara allowed the Appeal mainly on the ground that the learned Judge failed to follow proper procedure contemplated under section 200 of Cr. P.C.

10. Sub-section (b), (c) and (d) in section 84 of Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act and sub-section (a), (b) and (c) of Section 17C of Mathadi Act are identical. Thus, there cannot be any order other the orders mentioned in (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 84 of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act appealable. Similarly, under the Mathadi Act, no other order except mentioned under 6 of 7 WP2526_2016.doc section 17C of Mathadi Act is appealable. Thus, Section 84 and section 17C are quite similar. Section 17C lays down a specific provision for appealable orders from Labour Court to Industrial Court and when such Appeals are preferred under Mathadi Act as per Section 17D, the Industrial Court will have the same powers as the powers vests with the Industrial Court for the purpose of Mathadi Act.