1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6656 OF 2009 General Kirana Merchants Association, Aurangabad .........Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others .........Respondents. Shri. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1/State. Shri. P.V. Mandlik Senior Counsel h/f. Shri. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri. P.C. Wagh, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 24th March, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. The petitioner is raising exception to the order in respect of fixation of rates of wages payable to Mathadi labours prescribed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act 2 1969. 2. The revision in respect of wages was stated to be due for a period, commencing from 1st May 2005 to February 2006. The revision was taken in respect of wages for a period, commencing from May 2005 and effective till the year 2008. The one Member Committee constituted by the State Government has taken a decision in respect of increase in wages in view of resolution adopted on 24th February 2006. The revised wages are made applicable for the period commencing from March 2006 onwards. Although the revision was due since May 2005, no recovery in respect of dues for the period between May 2005 to March 2006 was directed. The petitioner is raising challenge to the orders in respect of prescribing the revised wages and directing recovery of the amount, firstly on the ground that the constitution of the Board is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1969 and secondly, it is contended that the inquiry is not conducted by the Board in consonance with section 13 of the Act, inasmuch as no proper opportunity is extended to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It is also contended that the recovery which is directed against the Members of the Petitioner's Association is without observing the procedure prescribed in the law and there is 3 no reasonable basis for arriving at the quantum of recoverable amount as determined by the Board. 2. Firstly, it is to be noted that the enhancement in respect of wages payable to the Mathadi workers is quite meager. While passing the impugned order, there are reasons stated in support of increase in wages. The Board has taken into consideration the rate of inflation during the relevant period. The another aspect, that is tobe taken into account is, even though the revision in wages was due since 1st May 2005, there is no recovery directed for the period of above 10 months prior to issuance of order. This factor is taken into account while directing increase in the wages. The order also gives an impression that the representation received from the Association of Workers, Merchants have been taken into account. Firstly, as the wages prescribed are for the period between March 2006 till the year 2008, by virtue of lapse of period, it would not be necessary to go into the merits of challenge raised by the petitioner, much after lapsing of the period, prescribed in respect of recovery as well as increase in wages payable to the labours. Although the order is made effective since March 2006, challenge is raised only in the year 2009, that too, after the proceedings for recovery were taken up by the Board. On account of delay and 4 lapses in approaching the Court, the petition is not entertainable. Feeble attempt is made to explain the delay, contending that there was representation made to the State Government and the same same remained pending. However, the reason put forth is not convincing and as such, the petition which is presented after a long span, much after the period prescribed for operation of the orders prescribing increase in wages was over, is not worthy to be entertained. 3. Another ground of attack is on account of non observance of provisions of Section 6-A in constituting the Board comprising of one Member by the State Government. Section 6-A invests with the State Government, the powers to appoint Board consisting of one member. It is contended that the employers were not called upon to nominate their representative on Board and without making such effort, the one Member Board came to be appointed by the State Government. It is contended that the order is issued in violation of Section 6 (1) of the Act. The State Government is empowered to make appointment of the Board which is inclusive of representatives of the workers as well as employers. However, in certain contingencies, "for any reason whatsoever", the State Government is empowered to make appointment of Single 5 Member Board. The discretion vests with the State Government to make appointment of Single Member Borad in the contingencies where it is not feasible to make appointment in consonance with Section 6 of the Act to constitute the Body. In the contingencies, when it is not possible to constitute the Board within reasonable period, as contemplated by Section 6 of the Act, it is permissible for Government to appoint single member board. It is noted in the order itself that the constitution of the Board as contemplated by Section 6 is likely to take more time and in order to carry out the functions of the Board prescribed under the Act, the Board as prescribed under Section 6-A is being constituted. The appointment of the Single Member Board is stop gap arrangement until the Board is constituted by the State Government in consonance with Section 6 of the Act. 4. It is contended that the impugned order prescribing revision of wages is issued without affording appropriate opportunity of being heard to the Association of employers. However, the contentions raised in that behalf are controverted by the respondent Board as well as the representative of workers. It transpires that notices were issued and the views of employer was solicited before prescribing revision in wages. The impugned 6 order also refers to the contentions raised in representations forwarded by the association of the employers as well as several individual employer. On perusal of the order, it transpires that the contention of class of employers has taken into account before prescribing higher wages by way of revision adopted in the year 2006. 5. The another challenge is in respect of the non-observance of the procedure in determination of the amount due from employers. It is contended that prior to determination of the dues, no notice has been issued to the employer. However, the contention raised appears to be factually incorrect as the notice was published in the newspaper calling upon the employers to appear before the authority and to put forth their contentions. Apart from this, the representative of the employer's association and several individual employers were also aware in respect of the proceedings initiated and they have effectively participated in the proceedings. It is also to be taken note of that determination of the dues is for the period between March, 2006 onwards. It is to be noted that in view of the impugned order which is subject matter of challenge in this petition, the wages prescribed in the year 2006 are effective till 2008. The next revision was already due in 2009. 7 The challenge raised is stale as stated above on account of delay and laches in approaching the Court. It is also to be taken a note of that the labour class is held entitled to receive paltry increase in the wages payable to them and as such, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this is not a fit case for causing interference in the impugned order directing paltry increase in the wages payable to labour class. The petition is devoid of substance, hence, stands rejected. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp6656.09