1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2006 The clearing & Forwarding Unprotected Dock Labour Board for Greater Bombay. .. Petitioner. vs. The Food Corporation of India & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. M.S. Topkar for Petitioner. Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondents. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 15TH JULY, 2008. DATE: 15TH JULY, 2008. DATE: 15TH JULY, 2008. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petitioner Board is constituted under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (for short "the Mathadi Act") and the scheme has been framed under the Clearing and Forwarding Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1976 2 (for short "the Scheme") by the State Government under Section 3 (1) of the Mathadi Act. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Food Corporation of India which is established under the Food Corporations Act, 1964 to register itself with the Petitioner Board as "employer" and accept the liabilities and obligations under the Mathadi Act, 1969 and the Clearing and Forwarding Board Scheme, 1991. 3. Apart from other issues raised in the petition, the key issue for our consideration is whether such a writ is required to be issued to the respondent Food Corporation of India when the Board under the Mathadi Act and the Scheme framed is sufficiently empowered to take action against such defaulter. Section 7 of the Mathadi Act clearly provides for powers and duties of the Board and is well equipped with the Advisory Committee as contemplated under Section 14 of the Mathadi Act as well as is expected to appoint the inspectors whose powers are defined under Section 15 of the Mathadi Act and for breach of any of the provisions of the Mathadi Act and the Scheme, they can take action against any establishment which is covered under the said Act and the Scheme. Therefore, if in the opinion of the Petitioner Board, the Food Corporation of India which is having its godowns within the State of Maharashtra are covered under the Mathadi Act and Scheme, nothing prevents the petitioner from initiating 3 legal action against them for violation of the Scheme through its instrumentality and, therefore, a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent cannot be issued as non-registration of the respondent with the petitioner Board invites penal action as per the provisions of the Mathadi Act and the Scheme which has been framed for the functioning of the petitioner Board. Failure on the part of the Respondent to register themselves being actionable, this Court need not issue any such order or direction to the Food Corporation of India to get itself registered. 4. We make it clear that this Court has not dwelt on the issue as to whether the godowns of Food Corporation of India are covered within the definition of "scheduled employment" as that is not the issue before this court and it has to be decided by the Board in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) ( K.U. Chandiwal, J.) ( K.U. Chandiwal, J.) ( K.U. Chandiwal, J.)