C.J. Patel Tobacco Products Co. ... vs Rajkumar Tukaram Janbandhu And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1588 Bom

                                 1
                                                            wp2575.09.odt

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                    Writ Petition No.2575 of 2009


  C.J. Patel Tobacco Products Co. Ltd.,
  A Company registered under Companies
  Act, 1956, having its registered office at
  3rd Floor, Mustafa Building Sir P.M. Road,
  Bombay-1, through its Power of Attorney
  Holder Vijay Govind Patel.                        ... Petitioner

        Versus

  1. Rajkumar Tukaram Janbandhu,
     Aged 42 years,
     R/o Kumbhartoly, Malviya Ward,
     Gondia.

  2. Dharmendra Kundlik Wasnik,
     Aged 45 years,
     R/o Shrinagar, Gondia.

  3. Appellate Authority under 
     Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions
     of Employment) Act, 1966 and
     Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
     Near Shri Talkies, Gondia.                     ... Respondents



  Shri A.N. Vastani, Advocate for Petitioner.
  Shri   S.B.   Bissa,   Assistant   Government   Pleader   for   Respondent 
  No.3.

   




::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017                     ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 00:56:46 :::
                                      2
                                                                   wp2575.09.odt



               Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

th Date : 10 April, 2017

Oral Judgment :

1. An application under Section 31 of the Beedi and Cigar

Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 ("the Act of

1966"), registered as Case No.B.C.W.A./Section 31/1998, has

been allowed by the respondent No.3-appellate authority on

17-3-2009. The petitioner is directed to supply tobacco and leaves

to the respondent No.1 and to pay wages to him. The petitioner

is also directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 in service with

continuity and back wages. Hence, the employer is before this

Court in this writ petition.

2. Notice for final disposal of the matter was issued on

24-6-2009. Thereafter, the matter was admitted on 15-9-2009.

All the respondents are served. No one appears for them. The

respondent No.3 is the appellate authority, for which the learned

Assistant Government Pleader appears.

wp2575.09.odt

3. The question involved is whether the provisions of the

Act of 1966 are applicable in the present case. The petitioner

claims to be engaged in the activities of sale of beedis only and it

was the stand taken that it is not an establishment carrying out

the "manufacturing process", as defined under Section 2(k) of the

Act of 1966. Reading the said definition along with the

definitions of "employee" under Section 2(f), "establishment"

under Section 2(h), and "industrial premises" under Section 2(i),

it is held in the judgment in appeal, impugned in this petition

that the sale of beedis is also covered by the definition of

"manufacturing process".

4. The respondent No.1, in the present case, approached

the respondent No.3-appellate authority for redressal of his

grievances. It was for him to establish that the petitioner is

engaged in the "manufacturing process", as defined under Section

2(k) of the Act of 1966. Section 2(k) defines "manufacturing

process" to mean any process for, or incidental to, making,

wp2575.09.odt

finishing or packing or otherwise treating any article or substance

with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal as

beedi or cigar or both. Merely because the petitioner is an

establishment engaged in the sale of beedis, it does not follow

that it is engaged in the manufacturing process. It has to be

established that the petitioner is carrying out manufacturing

process in the "industrial premises" of its "establishment", as

defined under Sections 2(i) and 2(h) of the Act of 1966

respectively. There is absolutely no evidence on record to

establish the aforesaid facts. I have seen the report of

Annexure-D to the petition, which does not indicate that the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 were engaged by the petitioner for

rolling beedis. I do not find from the said report that the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 were employed for rolling the beedis by

any contractor, muchless the contractor-Pundlik Wasnik by the

petitioner. Thus, the applicability of Section 31 of the Act of

1966 is ruled out. Therefore, the impugned order has to be set

aside for want of jurisdiction.

wp2575.09.odt

5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned

order dated 17-3-2009 passed by the respondent No.3-appellate

authority in Case No.B.C.W.A./Section 31/1998, is hereby

quashed and set aside. The application filed by the respondent

No.1 under Section 31 of the Act of 1966 is dismissed.

6. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to

costs.

Judge.

Lanjewar