Bombay High Court
M/S Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd vs The Secretary, Maharashtra Rajya ... on 19 September, 2016
Bench: R.M. Savant
(18) & (19) wp-9302.16&9303.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9302 OF 2016
M/s. Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. ]
Gyproc Business ]
Nare and Vadavali Village, Post Uchat, ]
Tal. Wada, Dist. - Palghar - 421 312 ]..... Petitioner.
versus
1] The Secretary, ]
Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi ig ]
Transport and General Kamgar Union, ]
Mathadi Bhuvan, ]
Plot No. 14 - A, ]
Sector - 19, Turbhe ]
Navi Mumbai. ]
]
2] The Goods Transport Labour Board ]
Greater Mumbai, through its ]
Chairman & Secretary ]
102/103, Steel Chambers, ]
Devji Ratanshi Marg, ]
Danabander, Mumbai - 400 009 ]
]
3] M/s. GJN Logistics, ]
B-102, Bhgirath Niwas CHS ]
Near Devandra Industrial Estate, ]
Yashodhan Nagar, Wagle Estate, ]
Thane West - 400 607 ]..... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9303 OF 2016
M/s. Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. ]
Gyproc Business ]
Nare and Vadavali Village, Post Uchat, ]
Tal. Wada, Dist. - Palghar - 421 312 ]..... Petitioner.
versus
lgc 1 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2016 00:21:59 :::
(18) & (19) wp-9302.16&9303.16
1] The Secretary, ]
Akhil Bharatiya Mathadi Transport and ]
General Kamgar Union, ]
Shroff Bhavan, 5th Floor, ]
P. Demello Road, ]
Karnac Bunder, ]
Mumbai - 400 001 ]
]
2] The Goods Transport Labour Board ]
Greater Mumbai, through its ]
Chairman & Secretary ]
102/103, Steel Chambers, ]
Devji Ratanshi Marg, ]
Danabander, Mumbai - 400 009 ]
ig ]
3] M/s. GJN Logistics, ]
B-102, Bhgirath Niwas CHS ]
Near Devandra Industrial Estate, ]
Yashodhan Nagar, Wagle Estate, ]
Thane West - 400 607 ]..... Respondents.
Mrs. N R Patankar i/by Shri P M Jadhav for the Petitioner in both the
Petitions.
Mrs. Pavitra Manesh for the Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.9302 of
2016
Mr. A K Jalisatgi a/w Mr. Satish C Hegde for the Respondent No.1 in Writ
Petition No.9303 of 2016
Mr. S K Talsania, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. B S Mahamulkar for the
Respondent No.2 in both the Petitions.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
DATE : 19th September 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule in both the above Writ Petitions, with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.
lgc 2 of 8
(18) & (19) wp-9302.16&9303.16
2 The above Writ Petitions take exception to the identical orders
both dated 02/08/2016 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court
(Court Camp), Thane by which orders the applications for interim reliefs being
Application (Exhibit U-2) in Complaint (ULP) No.25 of 2016 and Application
(Exhibit U-2) in Complaint (ULP) No.22 of 2016 are made absolute. By the
said orders the directions which are common in nature were issued to the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Complaint (ULP) No.25 of 2016 and the
Respondent No.1 Complaint (ULP) No.22 of 2016 i.e. the Petitioners herein.
The directions were to the effect that the Respondents i.e. the Petitioners
herein were required to provide loading and unloading work of their Wada
Factory to 46 Mathadi workers of Toli No.2369 in Complaint (ULP) No.25 of
2016 and 41 Mathadi workers of Toli No.2305 in Complaint (ULP) No.22 of
2016 and pay wages and levy to the Respondent No.5 Board within one week
from the date of the said orders. The Mathadi workers involved in both the
Complaints were also directed not to go on illegal strike without notice to the
Respondents i.e. the Petitioners herein. The Respondent No.5 Mathadi Board
was directed to regulate the work between the Mathadi Workers and the
Respondents i.e. the Petitioners herein
3 It is not necessary to cite unnecessary details having regard to the
final directions to be issued. The contentious issue which arose whilst
considering the applications for interim relief was the applicability of the
lgc 3 of 8
(18) & (19) wp-9302.16&9303.16
Scheme framed under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual
Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (for brevity's sake
herein after referred to as "the said Act"), to the Petitioner herein. It appears
that the Petitioner herein had vide letter dated 30/04/2015 sought for various
information which was mentioned in the said letter. It seems that the Petitioner
had engaged the Respondent No.3 herein i.e. GJN Logistics Company for
carrying out the work of loading and unloading in its factory and prior thereto
there was another agency which was engaged by the Petitioner. It seems that
the Respondent No.3 herein had engaged the Tolies (group of mathadi
workmen) in question till 17/12/2015 and the Respondent No.3 had
thereafter discontinued such engagement leading to the filing of the
complaints by the Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions. It is in the
background of the said facts that the applications for interim relief were
adjudicated by the learned Member of the Industrial Court.
4 The parties were therefore at issue as regards the applicability of
the Scheme framed under the said Act. In so far as the said aspect is
concerned, the following judgments of this Court were cited before the learned
Member of the Industrial Court :-
1] Shree Cloth Market Maratha Kamgar Sangharsh Samiti V/s. Baba
Transport Company & ors, reported in 2002-I-CLR-359;
lgc 4 of 8
(18) & (19) wp-9302.16&9303.16
2] Precious Gas Service & Anr. V/s. Chairman, Goods Transport
Labour Board for Greater Bombay & Anr, reported in 2003 -I-CLR-
785;
3] West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra, through
Collector of Mumbai & ors. reported in 2010-II-CLR-148.
The learned member of the Industrial Court having regard to the said
judgments appreciated the Scheme encompassed within the said Act however
proceeded to adjudicate upon the said applications for interim relief without
making a reference of the dispute as regards applicability of the Scheme
framed under the said Act to the State Government. In terms of Section 5 of
the said Act, if there is any dispute raised as regards applicability of the
Scheme framed under the said Act, the said dispute has to be resolved by the
State Government after consulting the Advisory Committee constituted under
Section 14 of the said Act. Admittedly, this procedure was not followed and the
learned Member of the Industrial Court, took upon himself to adjudicate upon
the said aspect.
5 Having regard to the said legal position, the learned counsel
appearing for the parties i.e. Mrs. N R Patankar for the Petitioner Mrs. Pavitra
Manesh for the Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.9302 of 2016, Mr. A K
Jalisatgi for the Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.9303 of 2016 and Mr. S K
lgc 5 of 8
(18) & (19) wp-9302.16&9303.16
Talsania, Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.2 are agreeable to the
impugned orders being set aside and the following directions being issued:-
A] The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1
in Writ Petition No.9302 of 2016 Mrs.Pavitra Manesh, and in Writ
Petition No.9303 of 2016 Mr.A K Jalisatgi, on instructions, make a
statement that the said Unions i.e. the Respondent No.1 in both
the Petitions who are the complainants in the said two complaints
would not press both the applications (Exhibit U-2) filed for
interim relief in the said two complaints, the said applications are
accordingly allowed to be withdrawn as not pressed. In view of
the said statement, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the
impugned orders. The impugned orders would accordingly stand
set aside.
B] The issue as regards the applicability of the Scheme framed under
the said Act is referred to the State Government for its decision in
terms of Section 5 of the said Act. However, it would be open for
the Petitioner to contend as regards applicability of the said Act
itself.
C] The Petitioner would file an appropriate application before the
lgc 6 of 8
(18) & (19) wp-9302.16&9303.16
concerned department of the State Government within four weeks
from date with copies furnished to the respective Unions as also to
the Board. In the event the application is not filed within four
weeks by the Petitioner then the statement of the learned Counsel
for the Unions would stand withdrawn and consequently the
impugned orders would stand revived.
D] The State Government is directed to decide the said dispute within
a period of two months of the application being filed by the
Petitioner and latest by 31/12/2016 by giving proper opportunity
to the parties.
E] Contingent upon the decision that would be rendered by the State
Government, the respective Unions would be entitled to re-apply
for interim relief in the pending complaints which applications
would undoubtedly be decided on their own merits and in
accordance with law uninfluenced by the earlier adjudication.
F] Needless to state that the contentions of the parties on merits are
kept open for being urged before the appropriate forum at the
appropriate time.
lgc 7 of 8
(18) & (19) wp-9302.16&9303.16
G] The above Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of the above. Rule
in both the Petitions is accordingly made absolute with parties to
bear their respective costs of the Petitions.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
lgc 8 of 8
