Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

73. Shri Cama, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that in the Committee's reports, right from 1963 clearly only those workers were viewed, who did not have the protection of the other labour laws and the Committee had identified only those manual workers who were engaged in loading and unloading operations. The reliance was made on Letter No. (C) 20206 dated 7-9-1992, written by one Shri G.K. Walawalkar, Desk Officer, informing that in an establishment till the workers doing mathadi type work are on their muster roll as direct workers and they are getting total protection and benefits under the various labour laws, till then such establishment shall not be included in the Mathadi Act or the schemes thereunder.

74. Two other letters were also referred to by the learned Senior Counsel. First letter was dated 10-5-1990 addressed to Western India Corrugated Box Manufacturers' Association, authored by one Divisional Officer, informing to the Chairman, Western India Corrugated Box Manufacturers' Association that the provisions of the Mathadi Act are not applicable to the directly employed workers (employed on permanent basis) by the company. Another letter was dated 3-10-1991 addressed to the Secretary, Mumbai Timber Merchants Association Ltd., specifying that the direct labourers of the employer doing loading/unloading work would not be covered by the said Act. Though these two letters were never procured, they were produced before us.

75. Further, a reference was made to the letter of the Mathadi Board (Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board) dated 17-11-1983, wherein the Mathadi Board understood and applied the Act only to that special class of workers doing loading and unloading operations in scheduled employments, who were in the regular employments of an employer and, therefore, were not protected by 65 (2010) 2 SCC 273 WP(C) 617/2024 & conn. matters Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 63 of 70 Digitally Signed KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:01.07.2024 Signing Date:01.07.2024 18:50:15 18:52:46 other applicable labour legislations. It was also urged that only after the impugned judgment was passed, the Mathadi Boards have started asking the employers to register them under the Act even if they are engaging regular full-time workers. It was urged that in Irkar Shahu v. Bombay Port Trust66, the Mathadi Board had taken such a position and they could not now turn back from their stance. From this, the learned Senior Counsel urged that since the State Government itself understood the provision in a particular manner, such understanding should be honoured by the courts.