(1.) WRIT Petition No. 1475 of 1987 is filed by the petitioners who are carrying on business as Hundekaris in various vegetable markets in Bombay. The second petitioner is a registered body of such Hundekaris. The petition is filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all the Hundekaris for a direction that the decision of the State Government contained in letter dated 16-2-1987 as a result of which the petitioners were refused registration as "employers" under the Vegetable Markets Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme), should be set aside and that they should be permitted to register themselves as employers under the said Scheme.
(2.) AT the stage of granting interim reliefs in the petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court, in his order dated 16-7-1987 directed that as and by way of an interim arrangement the petitioners should be registered under the said Scheme as Mukadams or Tolli Pramukhs and they should be permitted to carry on their work as Mukadams or Tolli Pramukhs under the said Scheme. An appeal was carried from this interim order before the Division Bench. The Division Bench by its order dated 27-7-1987 allowed the appeal and set aside the interim order of the learned Single Judge except in regard to the direction for an expeditious hearing. The Division Bench directed the Bombay Vegetable Markets Unprotected Labour Board constituted under section 6 (1) of the Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) who are the second respondents, to consider the application of Hundekaris for registration independently of the letter of the State Government dated 16-2-1987. The Division Bench further directed that in case there was any dispute regarding the application for such registration, the State Government should decide the same in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the said Act and after giving to the Hundekaris an opportunity of being heard. Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, the application of the Hundekaris for registration under the said Scheme as "employers" was considered by the said Board. The applications were rejected by the Board by its order dated 30-10-1987. In view of the dispute relating to registration, provisions of section 5 of the said Act were attracted. Section 5 of the said Act provides that if any question arises whether any scheme applies to any class of unprotected workers or employers, the matter shall be referred to the State Government. The decision of the State Government on the question, which shall be taken after consulting the Advisory Committee constituted under section 14, shall be final. Accordingly, the question was put before the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee by its decision dated 26-8-1988 held that Hundekaris were not entitled to be registered as employers under the said Scheme. The State Government thereafter took into account the opinion of the Advisory Committee as also the views put forward by the Hundekaris and ultimately passed an order dated 6-1-1989 under section 5 of the said Act directing that the Hundekaris should be registered by the said Board as employers under the said Scheme. In view of this decision, Writ Petition No. 1475/1987 does not now survive as the prayers of the petitioners in this petition have been granted.
(3.) TH decision of the State Government, however, of 6th of January, 1989 is now challenged by the Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) in Writ Petition No. 510 of 1989. It is the contention of the Union that the Hundekaris are not entitled to be registered as employers under the said Scheme. They have, therefore, prayed that the order of 6th of January, 1989 of the State Government should be set aside and Hundekaris should be restrained from registereing themselves as employers under the said Scheme with the Board.