M/S Cosmo Films Ltd, Aurangabad vs Aurangabad Mathadi And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10004 Bom

                                                Writ Petition No.7804/2018
                                      :: 1 ::



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                      WRIT PETITION NO.7804 OF 2018


 M/s Cosmo Films Ltd.
 B-14/8 and 9, M.I.D.C., Waluj IA,
 Aurangabad
 through Head HR & IR                           ... PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1.       Aurangabad Mathadi and
          Unprotected Labour Board,
          Behind Dhanwantari Medical,
          Opp. Amjad Bhavan,
          Khadkewshwar, Aurangabad
          through its Secretary

 2.       Shri Shriram Bhausaheb Gaikwad,
          Proprietor, Papa Services,
          Bachate Niwas, Near Deogiri
          Nagari Bank, Aurangabad - 431 136

 3.       Shri Sakharam Bashiram Dhangar,
          Proprietor, Sai Services,
          Chatrapati Nagar, Galli No.2,
          Bajaj Nagar, Aurangabad - 431 136

 4.       Shri Mahato Ramsingasan Lakhindar,
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 5.       Shri Sayyad Taufik Biram
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 6.       Shri Sayyad Rafiq Biram
          Age major, Occ. Service,




::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2021 04:54:55 :::
                                           Writ Petition No.7804/2018
                               :: 2 ::


          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 7.       Shri Sanjay Nathrao Shinde
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 8.       Shri Dinesh Kumar khoweal
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 9.       Shri Sanjay Pandhrinath Parkhe
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 10.      Shri Sanjay Balaji Kulkarni
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 11.      Shri Arun Giridhar Paithane
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 12.      Shri Durwas Tarachandji Meshram
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 13.      Shri Ajay Omprakash Borkar
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105




::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2021              ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2021 04:54:55 :::
                                           Writ Petition No.7804/2018
                               :: 3 ::


 14.      Shri Mukesh Arun Borkar
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 15.      Shri Sandeep Devraj Barsagade
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 16.      Shri Shrikant Prabhakar Ramteke
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 17.      Shri Dhamadeep Suresh Ramteke
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 18.      Shri Chatrawal Bhajandas Meshram
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 19.      Shri Jagdish Bhilan Meshram
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 20.      Shri Laxman Labaji Dhule
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 21.      Shri Kamlesh Madhukar Shejwal
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,




::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2021              ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2021 04:54:55 :::
                                           Writ Petition No.7804/2018
                               :: 4 ::


          Aurangabad - 431 105

 22.      Shri Vinod Narayan More
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 23.      Shri Prafull Dudhramji Borkar
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 24.      Shri Ambade Shahadeo Pandurang
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 25.      Shri Sampat Sahebrao Jaybhaye
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 26.      Shri Tribhuwan Deepak Changdeo
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 27.      Shri Ambade Chandrakant Manohar
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 28.      Shri Babu Bapurao Sarkale
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 29.      Shri Landge Banan Sampat
          Age major, Occ. Service,




::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2021              ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2021 04:54:55 :::
                                           Writ Petition No.7804/2018
                               :: 5 ::


          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 30.      Shri Tarkase Deelip Buwaji
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 31.      Shri Kulkarni Shashikant Shamsunder
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 32.      Shri Chavan Bharat Govindrao
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 33.      Shri Chavan Shriram Somnath
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 34.      Shri Patil Kishor Hilal
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 35.      Shri Pautekar Rajendra Bhanudas
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 36.      Shri Subhash Baburao Mule
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105




::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2021              ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2021 04:54:55 :::
                                           Writ Petition No.7804/2018
                               :: 6 ::


 37.      Shri Gajare Yogesh Sheshrao
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 38.      Shri Futmali Laxman Rangnath
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 39.      Shri Babhale Sham Shankar
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 40.      Shri Dube Yogesh Manohar
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 41.      Shri Devidas Ramdas Paithane
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 42.      Shri Dhobale Prabhakar Trimbakrao
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 43.      Shri Mote Kisan Ranghnath
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
          Aurangabad - 431 105

 44.      Shri Datta Karbhari Jadhav
          Age major, Occ. Service,
          R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
          G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,




::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2021              ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2021 04:54:55 :::
                                                      Writ Petition No.7804/2018
                                       :: 7 ::


          Aurangabad - 431 105

 45.     Shri Arun Wamanrao Gawali,
         Age major, Occ. Service,
         R/o C/o Adv. Prakash Shankar Paranjape,
         G-7, Chanakyapuri, Phase-II,
         Aurangabad - 431 105
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
                                 .......
 Shri   T.K. Prabhakaran, Advocate for petitioner
 Shri   P.P. Mandlik, Advocate for respondent No.1.
 Shri   A.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3
 Shri   P.S. Paranjape, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 45
                                 .......

                                  CORAM :        R. G. AVACHAT, J.
                  Date of reserving judgment : 1st February, 2021
                  Date of pronouncing judgment : 30th July, 2021


 JUDGMENT:

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken

up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for

the parties.

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order

dated 31/8/2018, passed by the respondent No.1 Aurangabad

Mathadi and Unprotected Labour Board (for short the Mathadi

Board), directing the petitioner Company (for short the

employer) to deposit a sum of Rs.5,54,80,346/- within three

days of the impugned order, lest the District Collector would

be requested to recover the said amount as an arrears of land

revenue. The said amount is said to have been due towards

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 8 ::

wages of 42 Mathardi workers (respondents No.4 to 45)

together with amount of levy and 10% surcharge.

3. Facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are as

follows :-

The employer, is a Company, incorporated under

the Companies Act, 1956. It has its factory at Plot No.B-14/8

and 9 in Waluj Industrial Area, Aurangabad. It is a registered

employer within the meaning of the Maharashtra Mathadi,

Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment

and Welfare) Act, 1969 (for short the Mathadi Act). The

employer had engaged the respondents No.4 to 45 as

contract labours through the respondent No.2 and 3 (labour

contractors). Due to shortage of work, the services of

respondents No.4 to 45 came to be terminated on 8/1/2009.

These workers got themselves registered with the Mathadi

Board w.e.f. 8/1/2010 and made a claim for their

reinstatement and wages. The employer resisted the said

claim. The Mathadi Board, however, passed orders in the

year 2011, 2014 and 2015, directing reinstatement -

payment of wages. The employer filed Writ Petition

challenging the said orders. The Division Bench of this Court,

vide order dated 21/6/2017, passed in Writ Petition

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 9 ::

No.7969/2014, set aside the said order, remitting the matter

back to the Mathadi Board to decide it afresh after giving the

employer an opportunity of hearing. The Mathadi Board

thereafter gave opportunity of hearing to the employer and

Mathadi workers as well. The impugned order then came to

be passed.

4. Heard. Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for

the employer took exception to the jurisdiction of the Mathadi

Board to hold enquiry and pass the order impugned in the

Writ Petition. According to him, the Act has no application to

the facts and circumstances of the case. The Mathadi

workers cannot have any claim of wages from month to

month. They did not have a right of employment on the

petitioner as if they are permanent workers. There is no

employer - employee relationship. Such relationship could

exist only between the Mathadi Board and the Mathadi

workers. Services of Mathadi workers are available to the

employer only when they are deputed on the request of the

employer by the Mathadi Board. The Mathadi workers are to

work in any of the registered establishments as per the need

of the employer, in the local area and as per the directions of

the Mathadi Board. The only exception is of monthly worker.

On termination of services of monthly workers, the Mathadi

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 10 ::

Board has a duty to take them as pool workers. The so called

Mathadi workers did not perform any work for the employer

since 8/1/2009. In view of the principle of no work no pay,

the employer has no liability to pay any amount towards

wages. The amount said to have been due from the employer

has no basis for arriving at a particular figure. The learned

counsel took me through the provisions of the Act and the

Scheme framed thereunder to ultimately submit the

impugned order to have not been sustainable on facts and in

law as well.

5. Mr. P.P. Mandlik, learned counsel representing the

Mathadi Board reiterated the averments made in the affidavit-

in-reply. According to learned counsel, there is an alternate

efficacious remedy available under Section 5 of the Act.

There are several questions of facts involved in this Writ

Petition. According to him, the work of loading and unloading

with the employer is done by Mathadi workers. The State of

Maharashtra has framed a scheme for Aurangabad region.

The employer was under statutory obligation to get the

respondents No.4 to 45 registered as Mathadi workers. With

a view to avoid payment of wages at a fixed rate, the

employer did not get them registered as Mathadi workers.

These workers, therefore, applied to the Mathadi Board for

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 11 ::

their registration through Marathwada Labour Union. The

Inspector paid visit to the manufacturing unit on 15/11/2008

and found the respondents No.4 to 45 to have been working

there as Hamals. After having got knowledge of the visit by

the Inspector, the employer terminated the services of these

workers.

6. The scheme framed by the State Government

authorizes the Board or its Chairman and Secretary to settle

the dispute between registered employer and registered

Mathadi workers. In exercise of the said powers, the Mathadi

Board held an enquiry and directed the employer to pay the

amount under the impugned order. In a meeting held in

January 2009, the employer agreed to reinstate the Mathadi

workers, but went back on its words. It was found during

enquiry that the employer had engaged some unregistered

workers as Hamals when it was obligatory on the part of the

employer to engage only registered Mathadi workers. Before

holding the enquiry, the employer had been supplied with all

the relevant documents. Learned counsel would support the

impugned order.

7. Mr. P.S. Paranjape, learned counsel for the

workers took me through the relevant provisions of the Act

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 12 ::

and the scheme framed thereunder. An affidavit-in-reply has

also been filed by one of the workers. According to learned

counsel, it is the duty of the employer to employ only those

workers who have been registered as employees with the

Mathadi Board. The employer never told these workers to get

themselves registered as Mathadi workers. On the contrary,

it was the design of the employer not to get them registered

as Mathadi workers, otherwise it would have been required to

pay them wages at certain rate. The workers, after having

realized of being exploited, approached the Marathwada

Labour Union and then got themselves registered as Mathadi

workers. During the enquiry, for their registration as Mathadi

workers, an Inspector had paid visit to the employer's

Company to find these workers to have been working there as

Hamals. The Act and the scheme framed thereunder for

Aurangabad gives ample powers to the Mathadi Board to hold

enquiry and pass necessary orders. The learned counsel also

took me through the relevant provisions of the Act and the

scheme in justification of his submissions. The workers were

illegally terminated. They, therefore, moved the Mathadi

Board. The Board, in turn, called the employer. The

employer's representative agreed to reinstate the respondent

workers. Basically it was a dispute between registered

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 13 ::

employer and registered Mathadi workers. On hearing both

of them, the Mathadi Board passed the impugned order. The

learned counsel ultimately urged for dismissal of the Writ

Petition.

8. Before adverting to appreciate the factual matrix,

it is desirable to refer to relevant provisions of the Act and the

scheme framed thereunder.

The Act has been passed for regulating the

employment of unprotected manual workers employed in

certain employments in the State of Maharashtra and to make

provision for their adequate supply and proper and full

utilization in such employments with further object to make

better provision for their terms and conditions of employment

to provide for their welfare. Sub-section (3)(12 & (13) of

Section 2 of the Act define the term employer, work and

wages respectively. Section 3 of the Act authorizes the State

government to frame a scheme for registration of employers,

and unprotected works in any scheduled employment and

provide for the terms and conditions of work of registered

unprotected workers and make provisions for general welfare

in such employments. The scheme may provide interalia for

(b) defining the obligations of registered unprotected workers

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 14 ::

and employers subject to the fulfillment of which the scheme

may apply to them; (d) for regulating the employment of

registered unprotected workers, and the terms and conditions

of such employment, including rates of wages hours of work,

maternity benefit, overtime payment, leave with wages

provision for gratuity and conditions as to weekly and other

holidays and pay in respect thereof; (k) for constituting the

persons of authorities who are to be responsible for the

administration of the scheme, and for the administration of

funds.

9. Section 5 of the Act speaks of the matter to be

referred to the State Government in case of a question

whether scheme applies to any class of unprotected workers

or employees. Section 6 speaks of constitution of Board.

Section 6(1) reads thus :

"6(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette establish a Board to be known by such name as may be specified in the notification for any scheduled employment in any area. One or more Boards may be appointed for one or more scheduled employments, and for one or more areas.

10. Section 6-A empowers the State Government to

appoint Board consisting of one person. Section 13 of the Act

authorizes the Board to hold enquiry for determination of

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 15 ::

money due from employers and workers.

11. In exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act,

the State Government has framed the scheme for Aurangabad

way back in September 1992. Since the multi-member Board

has not been constituted, the Deputy Commissioner (Labour),

Aurangabad was entrusted with the responsibilities of the

Board constituted under Section 7 of the Mathadi Act.

12. I have perused the scheme framed for

Aurangabad. Clause 6 of the scheme speaks of functions of

the Board. Clause vi, viii and x thereof are as under :-

(vi) grouping or re-grouping of all registered workers into such groups as may be determined by the Board, and receiving the grouping of any registered worker on the application of a registered worker;

(vii) . . . . .

(viii) recovering from registered employees contribution in respect of these cases of this Scheme, wager, levy and any other contributions under this Scheme.

          (ix)     .......

          (x)      maintaining and administering the workers' welfare

fund and recovering from all the registered employers contribution towards the fund when such fund is constituted in accordance with the rules of the fact;

13. Clause 9 authorizes the Board to settle disputes

between registered employer and registered workers. Clause

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 16 ::

8(k) authorizes the Chairman of the Board to take disciplinary

action against registered workers and registered employer in

accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Clause 9

speaks of functions of Secretary. Sub-clause (c) and (e)

thereof read as under :

(c) the employment and control of registered workers who are available for work when they are not otherwise employed in accordance with this scheme.

          (d)      ......

          (e)      the allotment of registered workers in the pool

who are available for work in registered employers and for this purpose the Secretary shall -

(i) make the fullest possible use of registered workers in the pool;

(ii) keep the record of attendance at call stands or control points of registered workers;

(iii) provide for the maintenance of records of employment and earnings of registered workers;

(iv) make or cause to be made the necessary entries in the attendance cards and the wage slips of the workers in the reserve pool as laid down in clause 23.

Clause 15 speaks of registration of existing and

new workers. Clause 24 speaks of employees of registered

workers.

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 17 ::

14. It is an obligation of registered employer not to

employ worker other than a worker who has been allotted to

him, by the Secretary in accordance with provisions of clause

9(c). Clause 13 imposes restriction on employees. It reads :

"No employer shall engage for employment a worker unless than worker is a registered worker."

15. The employment of a registered worker in the pool

shall not be terminated except in accordance with the

provisions of the Scheme.

16. The Act and the Scheme framed thereunder

undoubtedly indicate the authority of the State Government to

constitute a Board even consisting of one person. The

Scheme indicates the Board to have authority to decide

dispute between registered employer and registered Mathadi

workers. Admittedly, the petitioner Company is a registered

employer within the meaning of the Mathadi Act.

Undisputedly, the respondents No.4 to 45 were engaged by

the employer through labour contractors, respondent No.2

and 3. It is the case of the employer that their services were

terminated in January 2009 for want of work. It is not in

dispute that the employer had also engaged 92 registered

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 18 ::

Mathadi workers. It is only on 8/1/2010 i.e. one year after

the termination of respondents No.4 to 45, they came to be

registered with the Mathadi Board as registered workers. On

their registration as Mathadi workers, the Board got

jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the petitioner

Company (employer) and the registered workers. It appears

that, the Mathadi Board held some enquiry into the matter.

The proceeding of the enquiry is, however, not forthcoming.

There is no data indicating how the figures regarding amount

due towards wages, levy and surcharge have been worked

out. Initially the Board worked out the figure of

Rs.7,88,42,457/- as due from the employer on these three

counts. In the impugned order itself the Board reduced the

said amount to Rs.5,54,000/-, as according to it, the earlier

figure was arrived at on miscalculation. The amount said to

be due from the employer towards wages of the respondents

No.4 to 45 is said to be for the period from the date of

termination of their services i.e. 8/1/2009 to the end of

December 2015. Admittedly, during this period, none of the

respondents No.4 to 45 have worked with the employer. It is

all along the contention of the employer Company that

services of these workers were terminated on account of

shortage of work.

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 19 ::

17. The rival contentions are the disputed questions of

facts. Since the proceedings of the enquiry are not

forthcoming there is nothing to suggest as to whether really

the Inspector had paid visit and made inspection of the

employer's factory and gave his report. No further report is

also forthcoming to suggest that the employer, in addition to

94 registered Mathadi workers, had engaged workers other

than the respondents No.4 to 45 during the period post

termination of services of the respondents No.4 to 45. If at

all the petitioner Company had really engaged workers other

than the registered Mathadi workers, it may be liable for

disciplinary action. The Mathadi Board may do well in that

regard. The fact remains that, on the date of termination of

the services of respondents No.4 to 45, they were not

registered Mathadi workers. They were admittedly employed

through contract labour. Their services are said to have been

terminated for shortage of work. A year thereafter, they came

to be registered as Mathadi workers. For not a single day

thereafter, none of them has worked for the petitioner

employer. There is nothing to indicate that, all or any of them

were not gainfully employed during the period for which the

employer is directed to pay them their wages. The services of

registered Mathadi workers are to be availed on demand by

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 20 ::

the employer. As such, the registered Mathadi workers do not

have a right to work with registered employer.

18. A stray document has been placed on record along

with the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the workers. The

said document is said to be the report of inspection dated

15/11/2008. The said report should have been part of the

proceeding of enquiry held by the Mathadi Board. There is

another document in the nature of minutes of the meeting

dated 6/1/2009 held between representative of the workers

and the employer. What can be gathered from the said

document is that, it was the contention of the employer that

there was no sufficient work, raw material was not available,

transporters were on strike. In case the workload is

increased, the workers will be re-employed. While it was a

case of the workers that, some new persons were employed

instead of 42 terminated employees. True, the representative

of the employer appears to have agreed to re-employ the

terminated workers. It is reiterated that, the said document

is dated 7/1/2009. No proceedings of the enquiry that has

been held after remand of the matter vide order dated

21/6/2017 passed in Writ Petition No.7969/2014 is

forthcoming. In short, the Board did not hold the judicial or

quasi-judicial enquiry. The question remained unanswered as

Writ Petition No.7804/2018 :: 21 ::

to whether really the respondents No.4 to 45 were terminated

for want of work. These workers did not have a right to work

with the employer Company itself. Admittedly, none of them

has worked even for a day during the period from 9/1/2009 to

December 2015. As such, it would be a case of directing the

employer to pay wages for no work done. It is not known as

to how the figure of Rs.5,54,80,346/- has been worked out.

For all these reasons and more particularly for the reason that

the amount directed to be paid by the employer Company is

towards no work done, by any of the workers (respondents

No.4 to 45), and there being no evidence that during the

relevant period all or any of them were/ was unemployed,

interference is called for with the impugned order.

19. The Writ Petition thus succeeds. The same is,

therefore, allowed in terms of (c). Rule made absolute

accordingly.

( R. G. AVACHAT ) JUDGE

fmp/-