GUNNEBO INDIA Vs. GOVERNMENT LABOUR OFFICER AND SECRETARY METAL EXCLUDING IRON AND STEEL AND PAPER MARKETS AND SHOPS MATHADI LABOUR BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Board by which the Government Labour Officer and Secretary, Metal and Paper Markets and Shops Mathadi Labour Board directed the petitioner to remit to the Board an amount of Rs. 28,10,109. 40 being the amount of wages and levy due for the period April, 2005 to October, 2007 in respect of claim of Tolli No. M-112. The said order is passed under section 13 of the maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 read with the provisions of the Metal (Excluding Iron and Steel)and Paper Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1973.

(2.) THE petitioner is the manufacturer of steel furniture such as safes, cabinets, lockers, safe vaults, etc. The manufacturing activity was initially carried on at the factory of the petitioner situate at Mazgaon, Mumbai. The loading of goods from the factory and delivery of the above goods to various customers was done by Tolli No. M-112 consisting of 16 registered workers of the Metal and mathadi Labour Board. It is the case of the department that the registered workers were delivering these goodin Mumbai. Thane and raigad Districts, which are the areas falling under the jurisdiction of the Board. The establishment was registered with the Board bearing Registration No. MS/100 dated 20th december, 1976. The wage rates and other terms and conditions of Tolli No. M-112 were fixed under the periodical agreements between the establishment and the Tolli represented by Maharashtra General Kamgar union. The said agreements specified the rates for various mathadi operations. Tolli no. M-112 was carrying out all the mathadi operations pertaining to the finished goods of the establishment and the establishment was regularly remitting the amount of monthly wages payable to the Tolli and levy thereon every month. As per the say of the board, in or about April, 2005, it was brought to the notice of the Board that the establishment has decided to discontinue/stop manufacturing activities at their factory at mazgaon, Mumbai and the manufacturing activity is carried out at their unit at Halol in the State of Gujarat, On behalf of Tolli No. M-112 it was reported that the business of the company regarding selling the finished goods to their customers and delivering these goods in Mumbai, Thane and Raigad Districts is still continuing. Previously, the company used to do the same work of handling activity of delivering their goods to their customers on its own but now they have appointed logistic agencies to carry out the said work. The demand of the Tolli was that they should have been engaged for doing this work. In this behalf, the Board sent a letter on 18th March, 2005 asking the establishment to engage Tolli No. M-112 for loading, unloading and delivery of their goods carried out through their agencies in Mumbai, thane and Raigad Districts. However, there was no response to the said letter. A joint meeting was organized but nobody on behalf of the establishment remained present in the said meeting. It is the case of the Union that though manufacturing activity of mazgaon establishment is stopped, the business of the company in Mumbai is very much in existence and in fact the business must have increased. It is also the case of the Union that the material is being stored at bhiwandi and from there it is delivered to customers. It is the say of the Union that as per the Mathadi Act and Scheme, this work in question has to be done by registered workers of the Board. As against that, the work has been taken from the unregistered workers which is illegal. It seems that the establishment sent their letter on 16th June, 2005, informing the Board that the management has discontinued its manufacturing activities at Mazgaon and no work of loading and unloading is now carried on. The Board thereafter, after considering the provisions of the act and the Scheme and after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the establishment is persistently avoiding to address the issue by not remaining present at the hearing fixed even though ample opportunity was given to them. The board has also considered average amount of wages and levy for the period between April, 2003 and March, 2004 and came to the conclusion that the monthly average of wages for the two years comes to Rs. 1,68,387. 87. The Board has also considered the details of wages and levy received by Tolli between the period 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. The board has also found that the loading and unloading activities going on in the State of maharashtra which is in the jurisdiction of the Board. The Board found that the Company is the principal employer and, therefore, it is under the legal obligation to engage the registered workers for mathadi operations concerning their finished goods. The company has failed and neglected to engage the allotted registered workers (Tolli No. M-112) for mathadi operations despite several intimations and reminders from the Board. Ultimately, therefore, the Board gave appropriate direction in the impugned order asking the petitioner to remit to the Board an amount of Rs. 28,10,109/ being the amount of wages and levy due for the period between april, 2005 and October, 2007 in connection with the claim of Tolli No. M-112. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned at the instance of the petitioner.

(3.) MR. Rele, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that since the factory has already been closed at mazgaon and since no manufacturing activity is going on, as the same is shifted to Halol in the State of Gujarat, no such direction could have been given by the Board. Mr. Rele further submitted that in view of the closure of the factory, it cannot be said that there is any establishment which is in existence in the area in question i. e. Mazgaon. The so called place of godown at Bhiwandi is not registered with the Board and, therefore, the direction given by the Board is without jurisdiction. Mr. Rele further submitted that when the Act itself is not applicable to the petitioner in view of the fact that now manufacturing activity has been stopped, the direction given by the Board is without jurisdiction. Mr. Rele also further submitted that even the Board has also not made any calculation in a scientific manner before asking the petitioner to remit the amount to the Board.