MAHARASHTRA RAJYA MATHADI TRANSPORT AND CENTRAL KAMGAR UNION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2 SHRAMIK HUNDEKARI SANGH 3 BOMBAY VEGETABLE MARKETS UNPROTECTED LABOUR BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Are 'Hundekaris' entitled to get registered with the Vegetable Markets Labour Board of Greater Bombay - "the Board" as "Employers" under Clause 14 of the Vegetable Markets Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1985 - "the Scheme" made by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 - "the Act" is the short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave filed by Mathadi Workers Union - the appellant.

(2.) The factual background in which the said question arises for our consideration is the following: Mathadi workers are the members of the appellant Union. They are unprotected workers who carry out the manual work in vegetable markets (including onions and potatoes markets) connected with loading, unloading, stacking, carrying, weighing, measuring, filing, stitching, sorting, cleaning of vegetables - a scheduled emplopyment specified under the Act. That on January 1, 1985, the Government of Maharashtra made a scheme respecting that scheduled employment, as envisaged by Section 4 of the Act, Clause 14 of that Scheme required every employer to get himself registered with the Board. Hundekaris wanted to get themselves registered as employers with the Board, claiming that the provision in Clause 14 entitled them to get registered with the Board. The appellant-Union of Mathadi Workers objected to registration of Hundekaris with the Board as employers on the ground that they were not the employers as envisaged by the Act and hence they were not also employers who were entitled to get registered under Clause 14 of the Scheme. Indeed, the Maharashtra Government by its Order dated February 16, 1987 directed the Board not to register Hundekaris as employers under Clause 14 of the Scheme. However, later, the Government of Maharashtra sought to resolve the said dispute between Hundekaris and Mathadi workers under Section 5 of the Act taking note of an observation of the High Court in an order made on 27-7-1987 in a writ petition filed by respondent 2. But, the Government being under an obligation to consult the Advisory Committee constituted under the Act in resolving a dispute under Section 5 of the Act, its view in thematter was sought for. The Advisory Committee which examined the matter was of the view that Hundekaris were not entitled to get themselves registered with the Board as employees under Clause 14 of the Scheme. Yet, the Government took a decision on January 6, 1989, purporting to be that reached in consultation with the Advisory Committee and on hearing the parties concerned. The decision so taken on January 6, 1989 was as follows:-

(3.) We have heard learned counsel appearing for parties in this appeal.