Kambli 1 wp901.97 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.901 OF 1997 ... The Maharashtra General Mathadi & Transport & General Kamgar Union ...Petitioner v/s. 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.The Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee 3.The Mumbai Vegetable Markets unprotected workers Board. ...Respondent ... Mr.K.K.Singhvi i/b Ramesh Dube for the Petitioner. Ms.Madhubala Kajale, AGP for State. Mr.Y.R.Naik for Respondent No.2. Mr.B.V.Bukhari for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED: 11th February,2011 P.C.: 1. This petition is filed by the Petitioners- Trade Union, which claims to represent the Mathadi workers who are working as weigh men in the Wholesale vegetable and Kambli 2 wp901.97 fruits market of the Respondent No.2-Market Committee. 2. The only relief claimed in this petition is a direction to the Respondent No.2-Market Committee to abide by the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), in relation to the weigh men who are working under the Respondent No.2- Market Committee. It appears that pursuant to the directions issued by the Director of Marketing dated 14-9-1990 the Market Committee was registered with the Respondent No.3- Board as employer in relation to Mapadis. The Market Committee continues to be registered as Employer in relation to Mapadis with the Respondent No.3-Board. It appears that, thereafter, a direction was issued by the State Government to the Director of Marketing to withdraw his order directing the Market Committee to get itself registered with the Respondent No.3-Board as employer. That communication is dated 8-1-1996. It appears that to comply with that direction, the Director of Marketing addressed a letter dated 10-1-1996 to Kambli 3 wp901.97 the Market Committee informing the Market Committee that his earlier directions are withdrawn. However, it appears that the State Government immediately changed its decision and therefore, on 29-1-1996 the Government informed the Director of Marketing that it has changed its decision and that the Market Committee should continue to be registered as Employer with the Respondent No.3-Board in realtion to Mapadis working under the Respondent No.2-Market Committee. 3. It appears that, thereafter, a writ petition was filed by the Market Committee in this court, which was Writ Petition No.87 of 1996. That Writ Petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 11-6-1996. That order reads as under: “The learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate General state that Mapadis are not the employees of the Market Committee. He, therefore, seek leave to withdraw the petition. Permission granted. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. “ 4. It is, however, common ground before us that the Kambli 4 wp901.97 Market Committee continues to be registered as Employer with the Respondent No.3-Board in relation Mapadis working in the vegetable and fruits market. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Market Committee, though claims that the Market Committee was forced to get itself registered as employer with the Respondent No.3-Board, accepted that the Market Committee continues to be registered with the Respondent No.3-Board as employer. 6. Thus, on record it is an established position that the Respondent No.2-Market Committee is registered as an employer in relation to Mapadis working under the Respondent No.2-Market Committee, and therefore, obviously, the Respondent No.2-Market Committee will have to comply with the provisions of the Mathadi Act so long as it continues to be registered as employer in relation to Mapadis. In our opinion, therefore, the direction sought by the Petitioner in this petition will have to be issued and hence the Kambli 5 wp901.97 Respondent No.2-Market Committee is directed to comply with the provisions of the Mathadi Act in relation to the members of the Petitioner-Trade-Union, so long as it continues to be registered as employer with the Respondent No.3-Board. 7. In the result, therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)