SAINT GOBAIN INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. SECRETARY, MAHARASHTRA RAJYA MATHADI IG TRANSPORT AND GENERAL KAMGAR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule in both the above Writ Petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) The above Writ Petitions take exception to the identical orders both dated 02/08/2016 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court (Court Camp), Thane by which orders the applications for interim reliefs being Application (Exhibit U-2) in Complaint (ULP) No.25 of 2016 and Application (Exhibit U-2) in Complaint (ULP) No.22 of 2016 are made absolute. By the said orders the directions which are common in nature were issued to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Complaint (ULP) No.25 of 2016 and the Respondent No.1 Complaint (ULP) No.22 of 2016 i.e. the Petitioners here in. The directions were to the effect that the Respondents i.e. the Petitioners herein were required to provide loading and unloading work of their Wada Factory to 46 Mathadi workers of Toli No.2369 in Complaint (ULP) No.25 of 2016 and 41 Mathadi workers of Toli No.2305 in Complaint (ULP) No.22 of 2016 and pay wages and levy to the Respondent No.5 Board within one week from the date of the said orders. The Mathadi workers involved in both the Complaints were also directed not to go on illegal strike without notice to the Respondents i.e. the Petitioners herein. The Respondent No.5 Mathadi Board was directed to regulate the work between the Mathadi Workers and the Respondents i.e. the Petitioners herein

(3.) It is not necessary to cite unnecessary details having regard to the final directions to be issued. The contentious issue which arose whilst considering the applications for interim relief was the applicability of the Scheme framed under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (for brevity's sake herein after referred to as "the said Act "), to the Petitioner herein. It appears that the Petitioner herein had vide letter dated 30/04/2015 sought for various information which was mentioned in the said letter. It seems that the Petitioner had engaged the Respondent No.3 herein i.e. GJN Logistics Company for carrying out the work of loading and unloading in its factory and prior thereto there was another agency which was engaged by the Petitioner. It seems that the Respondent No.3 herein had engaged the Tolies (group of mathadi workmen) in question till 17/12/2015 and the Respondent No.3 had thereafter discontinued such engagement leading to the filing of the complaints by the Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions. It is in the background of the said facts that the applications for interim relief were adjudicated by the learned Member of the Industrial Court.