Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

'Unprotected worker' was finally defined in Section 2 (II) of the Mathadi Act as follows:-
" 'unprotected worker' means a manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment."

The contention raised with reference to what was there in the bill was rejected by the Supreme Court by holding as follows:-

"It must, at this juncture, be noted that in spite of Section 2(11), which included the words "but for the provisions of this Act is not adequately protected by legislation for welfare and benefits of the labour force in the State", these precise words were removed by the legislature and the definition was made limited as it has been finally legislated upon. It is to be noted that when the Bill came to be passed and received the assent of the Vice- President on 05-06-1969 and was first published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette Extraordinary, Part IV on 13-06-1969, the aforementioned words were omitted. Therefore, this would be a clear pointer to the legislative intent that the legislature being conscious of the fact and being armed with all the Committee reports and also being armed with the factual data, deliberately avoided those words. What the appellants are asking was to read in that definition, these precise words, which were consciously and deliberately omitted from the definition. That would amount to supplying the casus omissus and we do not think that it is possible, particularly, in this case. The law of supplying the casus omissus by the courts is extremely clear and settled that though this Court may supply the casus omissus, it would be in the rarest of the rare case and thus supplying of this casus omissus would be extremely necessary due to the inadvertent omission on the part of the legislature. But, that is certainly not the case here".