Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

52. The Petition (Writ Petition Stamp No.11311 of 2021), therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.

53. Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, established with an object of protecting the rights and catering to the interest of its members and labourers, who are organised under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mathadi Act' for short). It is the submission of learned Senior Advocate that the provisions of the Act envisage 1 & 2. wp 750-21 & ors. & wpst 11311-21.odt that the State Government should, by means of schemes, take such steps as are essential to ensure protection of employment, full utilisation of unprotected workers and strictly implement utilisation of such workers in every scheduled employment. It is, therefore, his submission that in terms of the 'Mathadi Act', it is the responsibility of the State of Maharashtra to make provisions for adequate supply of unprotected manual workers, and their proper and full utilisation in such employment. Mr. Sakhardande pointed out that prior to the issuance of the impugned G.R., lifting of food grains and essential commodities was permitted by the State Government from designated depots of the 'FCI' to an intermediate storage point at a State Government food storage facility and delivery to fair price shops thereafter. It is submitted that within the Vidarbha region itself, there are about 96 depots owned and hired by FCI, whereas there are 514 storage facilities of the State Government for 358 talukas in 36 districts. It is submitted that 14 districts have only one FCI depot, 13 districts have two FCI depots, whereas 19 districts have more than two FCI depots. Mr. Sakhardande is essentially aggrieved by Clause 1.4 and 4.5 of the impugned G.R. dated 15.01.2021. He submits that by virtue of the impugned G.R. which contemplates direct transport of foodgrains under the Public Distribution System ('PDS') to fair price shops, this mode will be impacted and that, in 1 & 2. wp 750-21 & ors. & wpst 11311-21.odt turn, will have a direct impact on the employment of Mathadi workers as a result of elimination of handling of foodgrains under the PDS at the State Government storage facilities, reducing the requirement thereby of employment of Mathadi Hamals. It is the submission of learned Senior Advocate that the National Food Security Act, 2013 imposes an obligation on the State Government to create, establish and maintain modern and scientifc storage facility at district, taluka block levels for the purpose of implementation of the PDS. This obligation is cast on the State Government at the State level to ensure an unhindered, smooth and regular supply of foodgrains at the respective fair price shops. The object to be achieved is that the distance between the fair price shop and the storage facility should be as minimum as possible so as to achieve efciency and regularity as also continuity in supply. It is his submission that such direct transport is in contravention of the statute and the obligation cast upon the State Government thereunder. It is, therefore, urged that as a result of this new transportation methodology, the use of State storage facilities is not only eliminated but the same is contrary to the provisions of the National Food Safety Act, 2013. It has the efect of drastically reducing employment of Mathadi workers thereby frustrating the object for which the Mathadi Act was enacted.

1 & 2. wp 750-21 & ors. & wpst 11311-21.odt

54. Learned Advocate General for the State, on the other hand, invited our attention to the afdavit-in-reply fled on behalf of the State Government afrmed by Mr. Sudhir D. Tungar, presently working as Joint Secretary in the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra and contended that by adopting the methodology envisaged in the impugned G.R., it cannot be said that there is any contravention of the provisions of either the National Food Security Act, 2013 or the Mathadi Act.

58. We do not fnd any substance in the contention of the learned Senior Advocate that the policy is in contravention of the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 in any manner. On the contrary, we fnd substance in the justifcation given by the State Government that the new policy is in consonance with and in furtherance of the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013.

59. We also do not fnd force in the submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner that the object of the Mathadi Act is in any manner defeated by doing away with storage of foodgrains at State Government storage facilities as a consequence of direct transportation. The State Government has devised a mechanism for transportation of foodgrains in terms of Clause 11 of the Central Government order dated 20.03.2015 under the Essential Commodities Act and for the reasons stated hereinbefore. The object of this new mechanism is transportation of goods from the Corporation godown to the Fair Price Shops directly as far as possible. Such 1 & 2. wp 750-21 & ors. & wpst 11311-21.odt policy cannot in any manner be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Mathadi Act.

60. The Mathadi Act applies to employments specifed in the schedule appended thereto. The Mathadi Act is enacted for regulating the employment of unprotected manual workers. No doubt some degree of inconvenience would be sufered by the Mathadi workers as a result of reduction of loading/unloading work at State storage facilities. However, it cannot be ignored that the rights of the Mathadi workers have to be balanced with the object for which transportation of foodgrains from FCI godowns to Fair Price Shops is to be made directly. For the reasons enumerated by the State Government, the reduction of the State Government storage facility, if any, cannot be said to be contrary to any provision of the Mathadi Act. The State Government is duty bound to regulate the employment of Mathadi workers in a scheduled employment. The G.R. does not exclude the applicability of the Mathadi Act. In our opinion, the G.R., as it stands, does not contravene any provisions of the Mathadi Act.