2009 (12) TMI 697 - SC - Companies Law

Whether the expression unprotected worker means a worker not protected by labour legislation or whether the expression means a manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment as defined in Section 2(11) of the Mathadi Act? Whether a Mathadi worker who has been engaged directly by an employer would fall outside the purview of the Mathadi Act? Whether a manual worker engaged by the petitioner therein through a contractor was an unprotected worker although he was covered by various labour acts? Held that - SLP rejected.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "unprotected worker" under Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969.
2. Correctness of the view taken in the Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra case.
3. Application of the doctrine of stare decisis.
4. Application of the maxim of Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima In Lege.
5. Impact of Article 254 of the Constitution of India on the Mathadi Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of "Unprotected Worker":
The primary issue was the interpretation of the term "unprotected worker" as defined in Section 2(11) of the Mathadi Act. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, in two concurrent judgments, held that the definition of "unprotected worker" includes every manual worker engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment, irrespective of whether they are protected by other labour legislations or not. This interpretation was challenged on the basis that it ignored the context and legislative intent, which was to protect only those workers not adequately covered by existing labour laws.

The Supreme Court upheld the Full Bench's interpretation, stating that the language of Section 2(11) is plain, unambiguous, and clear. It emphasized that the definition of "worker" in Section 2(12) must be read together with Section 2(11) to understand the scope of the term "unprotected worker." The Court rejected the argument that the definition should be restricted to casual workers, noting that the legislative history and deliberate omission of certain words from the original Bill indicated an intent to provide broad protection to all manual workers in scheduled employments.

2. Correctness of the Century Textiles Judgment:
The judgment in Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra held that only casually engaged workers came within the purview of the Mathadi Act. The Full Bench overruled this interpretation, stating it was erroneous and deserved to be ignored. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the Full Bench correctly interpreted the statutory definitions and that the earlier judgment failed to consider the plain language and legislative intent of the Mathadi Act.

3. Doctrine of Stare Decisis:
The appellants argued that the consistent interpretation of the term "unprotected worker" over 25 years should not be unsettled. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the doctrine of stare decisis is not absolute and should not perpetuate an incorrect interpretation. The Court emphasized that the correct interpretation of the law must prevail, especially when the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous.

4. Maxim of Contemporanea Expositio:
The appellants contended that the State Government and authorities had historically understood the term "unprotected worker" to exclude regularly employed workers. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that the interpretation of the law is the function of the courts, not the executive. The Court noted that even if the authorities had a particular understanding, it does not bind the courts to adopt the same interpretation, especially when the statutory language is clear.

5. Article 254 of the Constitution of India:
The appellants argued that the Mathadi Act, being a State legislation, could not override Central labour laws under Article 254. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the Mathadi Act had received Presidential assent, which protects it under Article 254(2). The Court emphasized that this argument was not relevant to the interpretation of the term "unprotected worker" and that the legislative intent was to provide broad protection to manual workers in scheduled employments.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Full Bench's interpretation of the term "unprotected worker" in the Mathadi Act, confirming that it includes all manual workers engaged in scheduled employments, regardless of their protection under other labour laws. The Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of the legislative intent to provide broad protection to vulnerable workers.

← Previous Next →