Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., is a paper manufacturer with a factory in Dandeli, Karnataka. It had a rented godown at Reay Road, Mumbai, where it stored unsold stock. For loading and unloading at that godown, it was registered under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (Mathadi Act) with the second respondent Board. A toli (group) of four workers, Toli No. P/33, was deputed at the Reay Road godown. The petitioner regularly paid wages to the Board for these workers. In 2007, due to reduced work, the petitioner decided to close the Reay Road godown and handed it over to the owners in December 2007. The Board, upon a complaint from the union, held a meeting and directed the petitioner to provide work to the four workers at the petitioner's other godown at Bhiwandi, which was owned by respondent No. 3. The petitioner wrote to the Board requesting that the workers contact respondent No. 4 (the Goods Transport Labour Board) for work at Bhiwandi. However, the workers were not allowed to work there by the existing toli workers. The petitioner then stopped stocking goods at the Bhiwandi godown and informed the Board. The Board passed an order on 16.12.2008 holding the petitioner liable to pay Rs. 6,29,280/- as wages and levy for the period September 2005 to October 2008. The petitioner challenged this order. The Court held that the petitioner was not liable to pay wages after the closure of the Reay Road godown because there was no work available. The Board's direction to provide work at Bhiwandi was not enforceable as the petitioner had no control over that godown. The Court quashed the order and the demand notice.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Mathadi Workers - Liability to Pay Wages - Section 18 of Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 - The petitioner, a paper manufacturer, had a godown at Reay Road where Mathadi workers were employed. The godown was closed in December 2007. The Board directed the petitioner to provide work to the workers at another godown at Bhiwandi, but the workers were not allowed to work there. The Board levied wages for the period September 2005 to October 2008. The Court held that the petitioner was not liable to pay wages after the closure of the godown as there was no work available, and the workers could not be forced on the petitioner. The levy was quashed. (Paras 2-10) B) Labour Law - Mathadi Workers - Employer's Obligation - Section 18 of Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 - The Court interpreted Section 18 to mean that the employer is liable to pay wages only when work is available. If the employer closes the establishment, the workers cannot be forced on the employer. The Board's direction to provide work at another location was not binding as the petitioner had no control over that location. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is liable to pay wages and levy for Mathadi workers when the godown where they were employed was closed and no work was available.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the second respondent and the demand notice issued by the Tahsildar.
Law Points
- Liability of employer to pay wages under Mathadi Act when no work is available due to closure of premises
- Interpretation of Section 18 of Mathadi Act
- Distinction between employer and occupier under Mathadi Act
