Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1228 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of statute - provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 - whether any scheme applies to any class of unprotected workers? HELD THAT:- The provisions of the 1970 Scheme dealing with manufacture of petro chemicals in factories would be within the coverage of the residuary entry i.e. Item 5 of the Schedule to the 1969 Act. This being so, no part of the 1970 Scheme is ultra vires the 1969 Act - The 1969 Act's terminology being wider than the terminology of the impugned 1970 Scheme, obviously the 1970 Scheme when it speaks of "chemical products" manufactured in factories and covered by entry 5 in the schedule to the 1969 Act would be intra vires the expression "products including fertilizers". The conclusion reached by the Government in its order dated 24.6.2008 that petrochemical products are a species of chemical products and that the Appellant manufactures chemical products, cannot be said to be perverse. We must not forget that the High Court in dismissing the writ petition was exercising the power of judicial review which would not go to the merits of the controversy before the Government but would only go to perversity -that no reasonable person invested with the same power could possibly arrive at the conclusion arrived at by the Government. This Court, while approving a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, has in the BHUWALKA STEEL INDUS. LTD. AND OTHERS VERSUS BOMBAY IRON & STEEL LABOUR BD. & ANR. [2009 (12) TMI 697 - SUPREME COURT] interpreted the expression "unprotected worker" occurring in Section 2(11) of the 1969 Act as meaning every manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment, irrespective of whether or not he is protected by other labour legislations. The State Government specifically arrived at a finding that Mathadi work was carried out in the company by two cooperative societies who had the work done by employing workers and got compensated by the Appellant company. This being the case, there is no factual foundation for Shri Cama's argument that it is the Appellant's purchasers and not the Appellant company itself that is the principal employer under the Act. It was incumbent upon the writ Petitioner not only to take up the plea of repugnancy and implied repeal but also to state as a fact that what the workmen would be entitled to under the 1969 State Act would not be as beneficial as what they would be entitled to under the 1970 Central enactment. This would then give the Respondent Board, in turn, an opportunity of either admitting or denying this factual averment. There being no pleading to this effect in the writ petition before the High Court, it is clear that it is not possible for us to accede to Shri Cama's request to go into the argument on repugnancy and implied repeal. Appeal dismissed.
|