Bombay High Court
Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 21 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2002) IIILLJ 707 Bom
Bench: C Thakker, R Desai
JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., for several reliefs prayed in the prayer clause of the petition.
2. The case of the petitioner-Society is that
it is a Co- operative Society registered under
the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960 and conducting its business in accordance
with law. The grievance of the.
petitioner-society is that the provisions of the
Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other
Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment
and Welfare) Act, 1969 ("the Act", for short)
have not been properly implemented by the
respondent-authorities. The resultant effect is
that the business of the petitioner-Society has
suffered. Several directions, therefore, were
sought by the petitioner against the respondent-
Board, State of Maharashtra as well as against
other respondents.
3. In our opinion, the questions sought to be raised and agitated in the present proceedings would not be appropriately dealt with and decided in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Our attention was invited by the learned counsel to the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. It was contended by the counsel that the workers who had worked with the petitioner-Society cannot be said to be employees of the Society, but they are sent by the Board and there is no privity of contract. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that they are the employees of the principal employer, i. e., the Society, and there is privity of contract between the employees and the Society, and they would be entitled to all benefits. It was also stated that several demands were made, and since there was no response by the Society, some actions including strike are sought to be taken in accordance with law. The grievance was with regard to non-payment of wages, etc.
5. The contention of the petitioner-Cooperative Society was that the strike is illegal and the said action was contrary to law. A complaint was made to the statutory Board, but the Board has not done anything in the matter, and that is why the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court.
6. An affidavit is filed on behalf of the Board, wherein it was stated that the Board was and is exercising powers in accordance with law, and would take all steps to see that the matter is settled between the parties, if possible. It was also stated that so far as the prayers made by the petitioner-Society are concerned, if sufficient material has been provided by the petitioner-Society, an appropriate decision would be taken by the Board.
7. It was submitted by the Society that perishable goods are lying at Mahalaxmi Pashu Kadya Karkhana, Gadmudshingi, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur, and that the petitioner intends to lift them.
8. In our opinion, no objection can be raised against the above prayer. We, therefore, clarity that it is open to the petitioner- Society to lift the goods. If there is any difficulty, it is open to the petitioner-Society to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
9. In the light of the above facts and the affidavit-in-reply, in our opinion, it is not proper to entertain the petition, and the petition deserves to be dismissed without observing anything on merits. Order accordingly.
10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the petition. The said prayer is objected by the other side. In our opinion, disposal or withdrawal of the petition would not make much difference in view of the fact that in the earlier part of the order, we have stated that we are not entertaining the petition considering the dispute raised in the present petition. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. All contentions of all parties are left open. It is open to the parties to take appropriate action in accordance with law by approaching appropriate forum.
11. Parties be given copies of this Order, duly authenticated by the Sheristedar.
