FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. CLEARING AND FORWARDING UNPROTECTED DOCK LABOUR BOARD FOR REATER MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is a statutory body incorporated under the provisions of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. Petitioner No. 2 is an ex-Senior Regional manager of petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is a statutory Board established under the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "mathadi Act"). Respondent No. 3 in exercise of the powers conferred upon it, under the Mathadi Act has established a Board known as "clearing and Forwarding Unprotected Dock Labour Board for Greater Mumbai, thane and Raigad Districts" (hereinafter referred to as the said "board"). It is the case of the petitioners that they are approaching this Court on account of acts of respondent nos. l and 2 who seek to impose the provisions of the Mathadi Act on them, thereby infringing the fundamental right of freedom of trade guaranteed under Article 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India. Petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the business of foodgrains and has to act in accordance with the directions issued by the Government of India. Petitioner No. 1 in that capacity has to act both as importers and exporters. For that purpose, it has also godowns and storage spaces all over India. It is their case that they are not engaged in clearing and forwarding of goods and for that purpose, whenever they have to import or export foodgrains, they engage agents who are doing the work of clearing and forwarding. These agents in turn employ workers for the work of loading and unloading who are registered by the Board. The petitioners ensure as part of their contract with the clearing and forwarding agencies, that the workmen who are engaged in clearing and forwarding are registered with the Board. It is set out that the aims and objects of the Mathadi Act is to protect workers working in docks for loading and unloading operations of goods for different entities and have no full time employment or in a given instance not even work for a full day. As these workmen were not getting regular employment or not having a permanent place of work and were being exploited, the State Government thought it fit to bring the Mathadi Act into force.

(3.) From the correspondence exchanged between the petitioners and respondent No. 1 since January 1997, respondent No. 1 has brought to the attention of the petitioners, that the Mathadi Act and the scheme framed thereunder are applicable to the establishment of the petitioners. The petitioners were, therefore, directed to get registered or face penal consequences. It is the case of the petitioners that their understanding is that the Mathadi Act does not apply to them and, consequently, they did not register themselves as they were merely consignees, respondent No. 1 thereafter issued a show cause notices to petitioner No. 1 as to why penal action should not be taken. The petitioners replied to the same. Respondent No. 1 once again called upon the petitioners, as they are the principal employers, under the Mathadi Act to register themselves as the principal employer. The petitioners failed to do so and, consequently, respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint before the 10th Labour Court at Mumbai in Case No. (MHWA) 9 of 1998 for offences under clause 1 read with clause 43 of the Scheme read with section 3 (3) of the Mathadi Act. The petitioners moved an application on 25-6-2003 under section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code to terminate the proceedings and discharge the petitioners. The ground taken was, that the applicability of the Mathadi Act has not yet been decided by the appropriate Government and further they were merely consignees and not principal employer and, therefore, no prosecution can be launched against them. By order dated 17-11-2005, the 10th Labour Court rejected the application of the petitioners dated 19-8-2005. By the present petition, what the petitioners seek is to challenge the show cause notice dated 30-12-1997, the threatening letter dated 18-3-1998 and the order dated 17-11-2005 passed by the 10th Labour Court on the application for discharge.