Bombay High Court Allows Employer's Petition Challenging Board's Review of Registration Cancellation Under Mathadi Act. Board Cannot Review Its Own Orders Under Section 13 of Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 74
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Valsad District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, a society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and a registered employer under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, challenged an order passed by the Nagpur and Wardha District Mathadi and Unprotected Labour Board. The Board had reviewed its earlier order cancelling the registration of respondent Nos. 3 to 12 as Mathadi workers and restored their registration. The petitioner contended that the Board had no power to review its own order under Section 13 of the Act. The Court examined Section 13 and found that it does not confer any power of review. The Court held that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be expressly conferred by statute. Since the Act does not provide for review, the Board acted without jurisdiction. The Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.

Headnote

A) Interpretation of Statutes - Power of Review - Section 13 of Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 - The issue was whether the Board or specified officer under Section 13 has power to review its own order. The Court held that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be expressly conferred by statute. Since Section 13 does not confer any power of review, the Board cannot review its own order. The impugned order reviewing the cancellation of registration was set aside. (Paras 2-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, a Board or such other officer as mentioned in Section 13 has power to review its own order?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of the Board reviewing the cancellation of registration.

Law Points

  • Interpretation of Section 13 of Maharashtra Mathadi
  • Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act
  • 1969
  • Power of review not inherent unless expressly conferred
  • Board cannot review its own orders
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (10) 162

WRIT PETITION NO. 5486 OF 2016

2025-10-07

Anil S. Kilor, Rajnish R. Vyas

Mr. R.B. Puranik, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. Mihir Puranik, Advocate for petitioner; Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for respondent No 1/State; Mr. Ranjan Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3,4,6,7,9,10

Valsad District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited

Nagpur and Wardha District Mathadi And Unprotected Labour Board, Nagpur and others

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the order of the Board reviewing its earlier order cancelling registration of Mathadi workers.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the Board's order reviewing cancellation of registration of respondent workers.

Filing Reason

The Board passed an order reviewing its earlier order cancelling registration of Mathadi workers, which the petitioner contended was without jurisdiction as Section 13 does not confer power of review.

Previous Decisions

The Board had earlier cancelled the registration of respondent Nos. 3 to 12 as Mathadi workers, but later reviewed and restored their registration.

Issues

Whether the Board or specified officer under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Mathadi Act has power to review its own order?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the Board had no power to review its order as Section 13 does not confer any such power, and the review resulted in miscarriage of justice. Respondents argued in support of the Board's order.

Ratio Decidendi

The power of review is not an inherent power and must be expressly conferred by statute. Section 13 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 does not confer any power of review on the Board or specified officer. Therefore, the Board cannot review its own order.

Judgment Excerpts

A short issue which arises in this petition pertains to interpretation of Section 13 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969. The question is whether under Section 13, a Board or such other officer as mentioned in Section 13 has power to review its order? According to learned Senior Counsel Mr. Puranik, manner in which impugned orders are passed, would clearly reveal that though powers were not vested in the authority to review the order, same were exercised, which has resulted into miscarriage of Justice.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Board's order reviewing cancellation of registration. The matter was heard finally with consent of parties.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969: 13
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Employer's Petition Challenging Board's Review of Registration Cancellation Under Mathadi Act. Board Cannot Review Its Own Orders Under Section 13 of Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employme...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Robbery Case Due to Unreliable Identification. Identification of accused by sole witness in darkness held insufficient to sustain conviction under Sections 394, 397 read with 34 IPC.