:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1901 OF 2009. WRIT PETITION NO. 1901 OF 2009. WRIT PETITION NO. 1901 OF 2009. M/s. Thermax Ltd., at Paudh, Post: Majgaon, Tal:Khalapur, Dist: Raigad. ..Petitioner. Versus. 1. State of Maharashtra 2. The Grocery Market & Shops Board for Gr. Mumbai. ..Respondents. --- Mr. Kiran Bapat a/w Mr. Desai i/b M/s. Desai & Desai for the petitioner. Mr. S. M. Chinchwadkar a/w Rahul Oak for the respondent no.2. Mrs. M. P. Thakur A.G.P. for the State. Mr. S. S. Pakalae for Intervenor. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE: February 18, 2009. DATE: February 18, 2009. DATE: February 18, 2009. Oral Judgment (Per S.B.Mhase,J.) Oral Judgment (Per S.B.Mhase,J.) Oral Judgment (Per S.B.Mhase,J.) 1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Order dated 13th January 2009 passed by the respondent no.2 is challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that in a part of the establishment, the work of mathadi nature is being carried out and to that extent the payments are being made, but the inspector of the respondent no.2 has carried out an inspection and he has pointed out certain other areas from :2: :2: :2: the manufacturing process where, according to the inspector, the work of mathadi nature is being carried out through unregistered workers, and therefore the impugned order has been passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that already the petitioner has raised a dispute under section 5 of the Maharasthra Mathadi, Hamal & Other Manual Workers (Registration of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1969 (for short "the Mathadi Act"), namely, as to whether the Mathadi Act is applicable to the areas where the respondent no.2 claims that the Act is applicable, and the said application is pending before the Government. 4. Under these circumstances we find that the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by giving directions to the Government to decide the said application made by the petitioner within a stipulated period. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State also states that the Government has no objection for fixing such time frame for deciding the application of the petitioner. Therefore, we dispose of this petition with following directions. (1) The Government is hereby directed to dispose of the application preferred by the petitioner under section 5 of the Mathadi Act after hearing the petitioner, respondents and :3: :3: :3: the workers’ representative union. (2) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. All the parties are before this Court and they are directed to appear before the concerned authority of the Government on 24th February 2009. Further dates and accommodations shall be sought by the parties from the said officer. (3) By way of an abundant precaution, we direct the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1 lac with the Board. However, the Board is directed not to disburse the said amount to the workers unless the Government rejects the application of the petitioner. Petitioner shall not also remove the workers who are presently working with the petitioner and who are covered under order dated 13th January 2009 till the final disposal of the application preferred by the Petitioner under section 5 of the Mathadi Act. In case the application under section 5 of the Mathadi Act is allowed, the Board shall return the amount deposited by the petitioner. (4) Parties to maintain status quo in respect of the impugned order. :4: :4: :4: (5) Petition stands disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)