Bombay High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., ... vs Nagpur-Wardha Districts Mathadi ... on 6 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 2323 of 2015
Petitioner : Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Small
Can Filling Plant, Nagpur-Wardha Road,
Village Khapri, District Nagpur, through
Senior Plant Manager
versus
Respondents :
ig1) Nagpur-Wardha Districts Mathadi &
Unprotected Labour Board, Bhonsla Chambers,
Civil Lines, Nagpur, through its Secretary
2) Specified Officer appointed u/s 13 of the
Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual
workers (Regulation of Employment & Welfare)
Act, 1969, 240, Bhonsla Chambers, Civil Lines,
Nagpur
3) Personnel Officer, Nagpur & Wardha Districts
Mathadi Board, 240, Bhonsla Chambers,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
4) Rao Engineering Works, D265, Gala No. 216,
Sagar Ratan Building, MIDC, Turbhe, Navi
Mumbai 400705, through its Proprietor
5) Sudarshan Gyaneshwar Patil, village Khapri
Railway, District Nagpur
6) Vikas Vishvanath Dhakane, Village Khapri
Railway, District Nagpur
7) Suraj Vasanta Chahande, Rameshwari Road,
Chandramani Nagar, Galli No. 8-L, Behind
Medical, Nagpur
8) Yogesh Gunwantrao Dhurve, Village Varoda,
Post Rui, Nagpur
9) Kawadu Prahlad Aaglawe, Village
Varoda, Post Rui, Nagpur
10) Vijay Vasantrao Kamatkar, Village Jamatha,
Post Gumgaon, Nagpur
11) Nimba Shravanji Chaudhari, village
Gotad Panjri, Post Pipla, District Nagpur
12) Prashant Prabhakar Punwatkar,
Neelkanth Magar, Hudkeshwar Road, Plot
No. 31, Nagpur
13) Moreshwar Vishwasji Wankhede, Village
ig Varoda, Post Rui, Nagpur
14) Manik Nagorao Sontakke, Village Varoda,
Post Rui, Nagpur
15) Ranjir Janrao Sardar, Opp. Power Grid
Office, Anguli Mal Nagar, Plot No. 340D, Nagpur
16) Jitendra Jiyalal Jangade, New Shukrawari,
Dasra Road, Mahal, Nagpur
17) Purushottam Bhagwan Ingle, Village Gotad
Panjri, Post Pipla, District Nagpur
18) Narendra Sopan Zore, Village Khapri Rly,
District Nagpur
19) Subhash Keshavrao Ingle, Village Gotad
Panjri, Post Pipla, District Nagpur
20) Jeevan Shivram Kannake, Village
Shankarpur (Bodki), Khapri, Nagpur
21) Dashrath Laxman Aglawe, Village Varoda,
Post Rui, Nagpur
22) Arvind Ganpat Kumbhare, 347, Vinkar
Vasahat, Manewara Road, Nagpur
23) Aakash Shankar Wani, Village Khapri
Railway, District Nagpur
24) Prashant Rajkumar Akolnekar, Village
Khapri Railway, District Nagpur
Shri R. B. Puranik, Advocate for petitioner
Shri M. R. Pillai, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3
Respondents no. 4 and 5 served
Shri S. S. Ghate, Adfocate for respondents no. 6 to 24
Coram : B. P. Dharmadhikari And
Kum. I. K. Jain, JJ
Dated : 6th June 2016
Oral Judgment (Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J)
1. The matter was heard for sometime in first half and was
adjourned to second half as Shri M. R. Pillai who represents respondents no.
1 to 3 was busy else where.
2. Effort of the petitioner is to show that the impugned order
cannot be sustained on the basis of so-called inspections dated 30.12.2013
and 20.1.2014. Certain inconsistencies in the said inspection reports are
pointed out by the learned counsel. It is further contended that though the
later inspection is relied upon while passing the impugned order, in
communication dated 21st March 2014 respondent no. 1 has expressly
accepted that no formal inspection report was prepared of the visit dated
20.1.2014.
3. In reply affidavit filed before this Court, a statement has been
made on behalf of respondent no. 1 that during inspection conducted on
30.12.2013, statements of workers were recorded and it was noticed that
though they were engaged in the work of loading and unloading, they were
not registered with the Board.
4. Shri S. S. Ghate, learned counsel appearing for concerned
workers (respondents no. 6 to 24) supports the impugned order. According
to him, facts show that the respondents no. 6 to 24 were working and are
engaged in packaging, loading & unloading work and, therefore, the
provisions of the Act would automatically apply and the petitioner could not
have entrusted the work to respondent no. 4. During hearing, it is urged by
Shri Ghate that though respondents no. 6 to 24 are attempting to join, the
petitioner has not permitted them to do so.
5. Writ Petition No. 3172 of 2014 is filed by present respondents
no. 6 to 24 seeking a direction to their employer to allow them to join and
perform their duty. Writ Petition No. 433 of 2014 is filed by a Union of
workers who claim to be Mathadi labours working with the present
petitioner. They are opposing grant of status as Mathadi workers to present
respondents no. 6 to 24 and grant of work to them.
6. Writ Petitions No. 3172 of 2014 and 433 of 2014 cannot be
taken up by this Bench as they pertain to the year 2014.
7. However, after considering the entire controversy, we find that
interest of justice can be met with by directing respondent no. 1 Board to
extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-employer in this writ
petition as also to the concerned workers viz. Respondents no. 6 to 24.
8. We accordingly direct the parties to appear before respondent
no. 1 on 20.6.2016 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter.
Respondent no. 1 shall within four weeks thereafter consider the entire
material on record after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned
parties. A fresh order shall be passed during the said period. Needless to
mention that fresh orders pertaining to determination and recovery of
wages/levies shall be passed contingent upon this adjudication.
9.
Till then, though we do not cancel the registration of
respondents no. 6 to 24 as Mathadi workers, no coercive steps shall be taken
against the petitioner for not providing work to them.
10. With these observations, we dispose of the petition. No costs.
KUM. I. K. JAIN, J B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J
joshi
