Courts on Its Motion v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Department of Labour, Mumbai and 2 Others

Bombay HC25 Jan 2021PIL/30/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of its suo moti PIL concerning Mathadi Board wages and employment regulations, directing parties to pursue grievances through independent writ petitions and interventions rather than continuing the court-initiated litigation.

What did the court decide?

The suo moti Public Interest Litigation No. 30/2016 and connected writ petitions were disposed of, with directions to parties to pursue their grievances through independent petitions.

Courts on Its Motion Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

Order

2501pil30.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 30/2016.

¶6

Court on its own motion.

¶7

….. Petitioner.

¶8

VERSUS-

¶9

The Union of India and others. ….. Respondents.

¶10

WITH WRIT PETITION NOS.826/2010, 4300/2015, 1121/2016, 984/2018, 1058/2018, 1059/2018, 1060/2018, 1061/2018, 1062/2018, 2329/2018, 2589/2018, 3899/2018, 3900/2018, 5561/2018, 5563/2018, 7463/2018, 7464/2018, 7465/2018, 8134/2018, 8207/2018, 622/2020 & CONTEMPT PETITION NOS.299/2017, 18/2018 & 19/2018.

¶11

Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Amicus Curiae.

¶12

Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent State.

¶13

Shri M. Puranik, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Shri A. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri M.R.Pillai, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

¶14

S/Shri F.T. Mirza, S.S. Ghate, S.N. Kumar, R. Deshpande and V.P. Marpakwar, Advocates for Intervenors.

¶15

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 25 JANUARY 2021.

Order

2501pil30.16

P.C.

Heard learned Amicus Curiae, and learned Counsel for the appearing Parties.

¶21

This sou moto Public Interest Litigation is listed on board today along with various Writ Petitions filed by individual Petitioners.

¶22

A news report came to be published in the daily newspaper “The Hitvada” on 17 February 2016 titled as “Steel units forced to shell out exorbitant wages to Mathadi workers”. This newspaper report was taken cognizance of by this Court and by order dated 18 February 2016. The learned Amicus was appointed to assist the Court. Notices were issued to respondents.

¶23

On 18 October 2016 the contentions of the parties were heard and this Court, referring to Section 23 of The Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, observed that it would be appropriate that the State Government conducts an enquiry through responsible officer on the affairs of the Respondent – Mathadi Board and submit a report. The report was to be submitted within three months. Thereafter a three member committee was constituted.

¶24

A report which runs into 137 pages has been placed

Order

2501pil30.16

on record. Thereafter the sou moto Public Interest Litigation has appeared on board on 12 July 2017, 16 August 2017 and lastly on 12 February 2020.

¶29

In the order dated 12 February 2020, the Division Bench crystallized two issues. First, a complaint on the part of the employer to whom employees are sent by the Mathadi Board. Second, is the workers are not being paid equally as per their entitlement the entire amount which has been received from the various employers. A question was also raised regarding relationship of the employees and the Mathadi Board.

¶30

The proceedings were initiated by this Court suo moto, based on a newspaper report. Thereafter Writ Petitions have been filed by individual employers’. Intervention application have been filed. The matter now has become an adversarial litigation. We are therefore of the opinion that it would be appropriate if this adversarial litigation is considered in the petitions filed by the concerned parties, rather than pursing it further by the Courts on its own initiative. All the parties are before us in their independent petitions and raising same cause as sought to be addressed in this petition.

¶31

The Court had issued a direction to the State Government to exercise its power of enquiry under Section 23 of the Act. This power has been exercised and a report is prepared.

Order

2501pil30.16

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner – Vidarbha Industries Association contended that the report is not a proper report. Intervenors and other Petitioners have a grievance against the Mathadi Board regarding the rates charges by it.

¶36

Therefore appropriate course of action is that, the issues in the suo moto Public Interest Litigation be left open to be urged in Writ Petitions that have been filed before us, and also keeping Intervenors right open to challenge the action of the Mathadi Board including the challenge if any, to the report that is submitted, by filing an independent petition. The learned Counsel for the parties are agreeable to this course of action.

¶37

As regards the rights of Mathadi workers espoused through their Union is concerned, it is kept open in case they choose to file any petition. In the Writ Petitions filed by the employers, they can join the Mathadi Workers Union as respondents.

¶38

Keeping all issues raised in this manner open, we terminate the proceedings in suo moto Public Interest Litigation. The same is disposed of. Pending Civil Applications for Interventions are also disposed of. Connected Writ Petitions to come up on their assigned date.

¶39

We place on record our appreciation for the efforts

Order

2501pil30.16

taken by the learned Amicus Curiae in the matter.

¶44

(ANIL S. KILOR, J) (NITIN JAMDAR, J)

¶45

Rgd

¶46

Digitally signed Rakesh by Rakesh Dhuriya Date: 2021.02.04 Dhuriya 10:20:45 +0530

Courts on Its Motion v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Department of Labour, Mumbai and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Courts on Its Motion v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Department of Labour, Mumbai and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavraj Shivaling Jibkate Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Maharashtra Apang Kamgar Kalyankari Sangh through Its District Vice President a M Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jyoti Rajendra Thombre Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Grampanchayat Savangi through Its Upa Sarpanch Shaikh Kadir Shaikh Abdul Raheman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Ishwarrao Bhosikar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahebrao Raosaheb Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pratibha Shinde President Lok Sangharsh Morcha and Others Vs Principal Secretary Public Health Department and Others

Income Tax Bar Association, Nagpur Thr. President, Rajesh S/O. Vithaldas Loya Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and Another

The Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur Vs M/S R. B. Seth Shreeram Narsingdas, Nagpur

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur Vs Kishore G. Kanhere

The Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur Vs Kishor G. Kanhere

M/S. Suprabhat Family Restaurant and Saoji Bhojnalay, Nagpur Thr. Sudarshan S. Lohkarre and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Others

Ku. Alisha D/O Mahendra Pinjarkar and Another Vs Research Officer and Member Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee Amravati and Another

Nandgaon Khandeshwar Taluka Sahakari Shetki Kharedi Vikri Samiti Ltd. Thr. Presi. Vijay v. Patekar Vs District Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Amravati and Another