: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1339 OF 2010 M/s.TNT India Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Goods Transport Labour Board for Greater Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.K.S. Bapat i/b Desai & Desai Associates for Petitioner Mr.A.V. Bukhari i/b B.V. Bukhari for Respondent No.1 Mrs.Bharati Patil for Resp. No.2 Mr.Sanjeev Kadam for Resp. No.3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JUNE 28, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petitioners have approached this Court against the order passed by the Recovery Officer u/s 13 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act 1969. 2. The petitioners contend that they have been allotted tolli No.1840 after they took over the business of M/s.Speedage Express Cargo Services. The aforesaid toli had already been allotted this concern and therefore it was continued when the petitioners took over the business. It appears that the petitioners closed down the business at Mahape and the work was being carried out at Kanjurmarg and Bhiwandi. According to the pettioners, they then shifted their work to a godown in : 2 : Kalamboli. The Kalamboli premises are owned by M/s.Jaspal Carriers. The petitioners contend that since they were operating at the Kalamboli godown owned by Jaspal Carriers which was the registered employer under the aforesaid Act, the toli allotted to Jaspal Carriers carried on the work in Kalamboli. 3. The members of toli No.1840 therefore were aggrieved as they received less wages and were not permitted to work at Kalamboli although the work which was being performed at Kalamboli was that of the petitioners and the premises were owned by Jaspal Carriers which was allotted toli No.2204. 4. The Board therefore called upon the Petitioners to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for not providing work to tolly No.1840 at Kalamboli. After hearing the petitioners the Board has passed the impugned order. 5. On a perusal of the order, I find that several issues which were raised by the Petitioners in their reply have not been adverted to by the Board. It has not noted the effect, if any, of the contract which the petitioners claim to have entered into with Jaspal Carriers. The Board has also not considered whether such a contract is permissible under the Act and whether it was necessary for any permission to be obtained from it, prior to entering into the contract. Furthermore, the Board has not discussed the effect of certain documents which have been annexed to the affidavit of Vishwas Ramchandra Jadhav, Secretary of the Board, affirmed on 19.4.2010 and filed in this Court. The impugned order of the Board is set aside. 6. The Board shall consider the matter afresh. The Board shall hear and : 3 : dispose of the enquiry proceedings conducted u/s 13 of the aforesaid Act within four weeks from today. The member workers of toli Nos.1840 as well as 2204 shall be heard by the Board as also the petitioners herein. The Board shall also afford a hearing to M/s.Jaspal Carriers by issuing a notice to the concern. An order shall be passed reflecting the Board’s decision on the aforesaid issues. 7. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.