Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Levy of Mathadi Act Wages and Cess on Public Sector Undertaking. Loading/Unloading Operations at Factory Held to be Scheduled Employment Under Section 2(11) of Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Limited, a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking engaged in manufacturing and marketing chemicals and fertilizers, filed a writ petition challenging the demand by the Grocery Markets and Shops Board (constituted under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969) for payment of wages and cess in respect of loading and unloading operations at its factory. The petitioner contended that its activities do not fall within the definition of 'scheduled employment' under the Mathadi Act, and that being a public sector undertaking, it is not liable to pay cess. The court examined the definition of 'scheduled employment' under Section 2(11) of the Act, which includes loading and unloading of goods in any market or shop. The court held that the petitioner's factory premises, where chemicals and fertilizers are loaded and unloaded, constitute a 'shop' or 'market' for the purpose of the Act, as the activity is incidental to the business of sale and distribution. The court further held that the levy of cess under Section 14 is valid and applicable to the petitioner, as the Board is empowered to collect cess for the welfare of workers. The court also rejected the argument that public sector undertakings are exempt, noting that the Act applies uniformly to all employers engaging workers in scheduled employment. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to comply with the demands.

Headnote

A) Labour Law - Mathadi Act - Scheduled Employment - Definition under Section 2(11) - The court interpreted the definition of 'scheduled employment' under Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, holding that loading and unloading of goods at the petitioner's factory constitutes scheduled employment as it is incidental to the business of a grocery market or shop. (Paras 4-10)

B) Labour Law - Mathadi Act - Levy of Cess - Section 14 - The court upheld the levy of cess under Section 14 of the Mathadi Act on the petitioner, as the loading/unloading operations are covered under the Act and the Board is empowered to collect cess for the welfare of workers. (Paras 11-15)

C) Labour Law - Mathadi Act - Applicability to Public Sector Undertakings - The court rejected the petitioner's argument that being a public sector undertaking exempts it from the Act, holding that the Act applies to all employers engaging workers in scheduled employment, regardless of ownership. (Paras 16-20)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner, a public sector undertaking, is liable to pay wages and cess under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 for loading and unloading operations at its factory.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to comply with the demands for payment of wages and cess under the Mathadi Act.

Law Points

  • Interpretation of Section 2(11) of Mathadi Act
  • Definition of 'Scheduled Employment'
  • Levy of Cess under Section 14
  • Applicability to Public Sector Undertakings
  • Loading/Unloading as Mathadi Work
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 306

WRIT PETITION NO. 456 OF 2003

2010-01-19

Smt. Ranjana Desai, Smt. Mridula Bhatkar

Mr. J. P. Cama with M. S. Bodhanwala, Mr. Ajay Khaire and Mrs. Prachi Mhatre i/b M/s. M. S. Bodhanwalla & Co. for the petitioner; Mr. K. M. Naik with S. P. Salkar for R-1 & 2; Mr. Milind More, AGP for R-3 & 4; Mr. Anand Grover with Ms. F. Moosa for R-5; Mr. M. S. Topkar for R-6

Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Limited

The Chairman, The Grocery Markets and Shops Board for Greater Bombay; The Grocery Markets and Shops Board for Greater Bombay; The Commissioner of Labour, Government of Maharashtra; State of Maharashtra; Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi, Transport & General Kamgar Union; Transport & Dock Workers’ Union

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the demand for payment of wages and cess under the Mathadi Act for loading/unloading operations.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the demand notices and declaration that the Mathadi Act does not apply to its operations.

Filing Reason

The Grocery Markets and Shops Board demanded payment of wages and cess for loading/unloading workers at the petitioner's factory, which the petitioner disputed.

Issues

Whether the loading and unloading operations at the petitioner's factory constitute 'scheduled employment' under Section 2(11) of the Mathadi Act. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay cess under Section 14 of the Mathadi Act. Whether the Mathadi Act applies to public sector undertakings.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that its factory is not a 'grocery market or shop' and thus not covered under the Act. Petitioner contended that being a public sector undertaking, it is exempt from the Act. Respondents argued that loading/unloading is incidental to the business and falls within the definition of scheduled employment. Respondents submitted that the Act applies to all employers, including public sector undertakings.

Ratio Decidendi

The loading and unloading of goods at the petitioner's factory constitutes 'scheduled employment' under Section 2(11) of the Mathadi Act, as the activity is incidental to the business of a shop or market. The levy of cess under Section 14 is valid, and the Act applies to public sector undertakings.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Central Government engaged in the activity of manufacture and marketing of chemicals and fertilizers. The 1st respondent is the Chairman of the Grocery Markets and Shops Board constituted under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 456 of 2003 before the Bombay High Court challenging the demand notices issued by the Grocery Markets and Shops Board. The petition was heard and reserved on 17th November 2009, and judgment pronounced on 19th January 2010.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969: Section 2(11), Section 6, Section 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Levy of Mathadi Act Wages and Cess on Public Sector Undertaking. Loading/Unloading Operations at Factory Held to be Scheduled Employment Under Section 2(11) of Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manu...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Three Accused in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence and Motive. Conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC confirmed as prosecution established chain of circumstances leading to the murder of Lai...