Dismissed¶28

Fatturam S/O Visambhar Sahu and Others v. State of Maha.,Ministry of Govt.of Maha.,Dept. of Industries, Energy and Labour, Thr. Secy. and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2025WP/5175/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mathadi workers; Mathadi Board; private railway siding at Kanhan; Anandam Logistics and Warehousing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.; manual labour not available — work done entirely by machines; writ petitions (Nos. 6181/2024 and 5175/2024) dismissed by Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench (DB); liberty to re-approach Mathadi Board/Court with fresh material; no costs; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

For lack of requisite data and documents, it is not possible to accept the Petitioners' contention that manual labour work is available at the aforesaid private railway siding. ¶25

Fatturam S/O Visambhar Sahu and Others vs State of Maha.,Ministry of Govt.of Maha.,Dept. of Industries, Energy and Labour, Thr. Secy. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner Mathadi workers, claiming entitlement to be engaged for manual labour, are being denied work said to be available at the private railway siding at Kanhan (operated, per submissions of Respondent No.4 and the Mathadi Board, by Anandam Logistics and Warehousing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.). +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

For lack of requisite data and documents, it is not possible to accept the Petitioners' contention that manual labour work is available at the aforesaid private railway siding.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since no material establishes availability of manual work at the siding, the Court is not inclined to entertain the Petitions.

¶25

Key takeaways

Liberty reserved: if the Petitioners later come across requisite material or data indicating availability of manual labour at the siding and it is not provided to them, they would be entitled to approach the Mathadi Board for allotment of such work and, in case of denial, to approach this Court if the law permits.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Division Bench: Avinash G. Gharote and Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.), Writ Petition Nos. 6181 of 2024 and 5175 of 2024, decided 02-04-2025 [2025:BHC-NAG:3404-DB]: Writ petitions by Mathadi workers seeking engagement for manual labour allegedly available at the private railway siding at Kanhan, stated to be operated by Anandam Logistics and Warehousing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., dismissed. An inspection arranged on the workers' complaint to the Mathadi Board (05.02.2024) had found the entire work done by machines with no manual work available. With no material on record to indicate availability of manual work, the Court held the contention could not be accepted for lack of requisite data and declined to entertain the petitions. The Court clarified that if the workers later obtain requisite material and the work is withheld, they may seek allotment from the Mathadi Board and, on denial, approach the Court if law permits. Pending applications disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:3404-DB

¶2

1 925.WP.6181-2024 & ANR..odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6181 OF 2024

¶5

( Kamlesh s/o Suresh Chakole & Ors.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra, Thr. its Secretary Ministry of Industries, Energy and Labour, MERC, Mumbai & Ors. )

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 5175 OF 2024

¶10

( Fatturam S/o Visambhar Sahu & Ors.

¶11

Vs.

¶12

State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Government of Maharashtra; Department of Industries, Energy and Labour, MERC, Mumbai, Thr. its Secretary & Ors. )

¶13

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶14

Mr. S.M. Mate & Mr. D.S. Thakur, Advocates for the Petitioners in respective Petitions.

¶15

Mr. P.P. Pendke, AGP for the Respondent No.1/State. Mr. N.S. Rao, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Mr. F.T. Mirza, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. S.N. Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.4.

¶16

CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND

¶17

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶18

DATED : 2^nd APRIL, 2025

¶19

Heard.

¶20

2 . The Petitions basically are addressed against the Mathadi Board on the plea, that the Petitioners who are Mathadi workers and are therefore entitled to be engaged for manual labour are not being provided the same, inspite of work being available at the private railway siding at Kanhan,

¶21

2 925.WP.6181-2024 & ANR..odt

¶22

which is being operated by one Anandam Logistics and Warehousing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., who is now operating the same, as is indicated by the submissions on behalf of the Respondent No.4 and the Mathadi Board.

¶23

3 . We have perused the Petitions with the assistance of the learned Counsels for the Petitioners.

¶24

4 . Upon a complaint being made by the Petitioners to the Mathadi Board, an inspection was arranged on 05.02.2024 at around 05.30 p.m., at the private railway siding, in which it has been found, that the entire work is being done by use of machines and there is no manual work available.

¶25

5 . As of now, there is no material placed on record by the Petitioners, to indicate that there is manual work available at the aforesaid private siding, on account of which, for lack of requisite data and documents, it is not possible, to accept the contention of the Petitioners that the manual labour work is available at the aforesaid place, on account of which, we are not inclined to entertain the Petitions.

¶26

6 . We, however, make it clear, that in case the Petitioners come across with the requisite material or data, to indicate availability of manual labour work at the aforesaid siding and in case it is not being provided to them, they would be entitled to approach the Mathadi Board for allotment of such work and in case of any denial to approach this Court, if the law so permits.

¶27

3 925.WP.6181-2024 & ANR..odt

¶28

7 . The Petitions are therefore dismissed . No costs.

¶29

8 . Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶31

SD. Bhimte

¶32

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/04/2025 14:58:41

Fatturam S/O Visambhar Sahu and Others v. State of Maha.,Ministry of Govt.of Maha.,Dept. of Industries, Energy and Labour, Thr. Secy. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fatturam S/O Visambhar Sahu and Others v. State of Maha.,Ministry of Govt.of Maha.,Dept. of Industries, Energy and Labour, Thr. Secy. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nagdas Rampal Kolisangat Vs Regional Executive Director, Airports Authority of India, Western Region, Mumbai and Others

Virendra S/O Devidas Dafe vs Principal Secretary Urban Development-I, Mumbai and Others

The Blind Relief Association Nagpur Thr. Secy. and Anr. vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. of School Education and Sports (Primary), Mumbai and Ors.

Aarthik Rozgar Va Swayam Rozgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Tumsar, Bhandara Thr. Secy. vs Municipal Council Kalmeshwar - Brahmani, Nagpur Thr. Its Chief Officer and Others

Rajjat Murlidhar Bhaisare Vs State of Maharashtra Ministry of Labour, Mumbai Thr. Add. Chief Secretary and Others

Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Thr. President, P. F. Gajghate and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Ors.