Case: Gunnebo India Limited Formerly Known As Steelage Industries Limited Vs. Government Labour Officer &amp; Secretary, The Metal (Excluding Iron &amp; Steel) &amp; Paper Markets &amp; Shops Mathadi Labour Board For Greater Mumbai &amp; Another

is going that in those circumstances only the act in question is applicable. Even if something is manufactured outside the State but if the loading and unloading operations are carried out in connection with the business of the Company as per the schedule, such operation of loading and unloading certainly be covered under the provisions of the Act. It is not in dispute that manufactured articles are brought within the State and loading and unloading operations have been carried out in the State of Maharashtra itself.8. In this connection, reference is required to be made to the Metal (Excluding Iron and Steel) and Paper Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1973. The object of the scheme is to ensure an adequate supply and full and proper utilisation of unprotected workers employed in metal (excluding Iron and Steel) including those employments in steel furniture, markets or shops and paper markets or other shops an establishments in the trades in connection with loading, unloading, stacking, carrying, weighing, measuring or such other work including work preparatory or incidental to such operations for efficient performance of work and generally for making better provision for the terms and conditions of employment of such workers and make provision for their general welfare. In exercise of powers conferred by subsection (2) of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, the Government of Maharashtra, after consultation with the Advisory Committee, has formulated a scheme for employment in metal (excluding iron and steel) including employment in steel furniture, markets or shops and paper markets or shops and other establishments in the trades in connection with loading, unloading, stacking, carrying, weighing , measuring or such other work including work preparatory or incidental to such operations in the area of Greater Bombay. Considering the provisions of the Act and the Scheme, in our view, simply because the factory is closed itself cannot be a ground for coming to the conclusion that the Act and the Scheme is not applicable. 9. Loading and unloading is an important part of activity and 16 workmen have already been registered with the Board in this behalf. Under these circumstances, simply because the said work has been assigned to a different agency cannot be a ground by which the petitioner can escape its liability as a principal employer as defined in the Act. It is unfortunate that the work of loading and unloading has been carried out by other agency ignoring the claim of protected workers. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then it may defeat the objects of the Act and in a given case one can bypass the said provisions. The provisions of the Act are required to be interpreted accordingly by keeping in mind the object for which the Act has been enacted. The Board has found that the Act and the Scheme is applicable irrespective of the fact that the factory of the petitioner is closed or stopped manufacturing activity in Mazgaon area. Regarding the argument of Mr. Rele that the amount is not calculated properly, it is to be seen that the Board had given ample opportunity to the petitioner but the petitioner has remained absent for the hearings fixed by the Board, even though ample opportunity was given to the petitioner in this behalf. Document produced in the petition is not reflecting a to whether such calculation is for 8 or 16 workers who have registered with the Board. The learned counsel for the Respondent Board has submitted that appropriate breakup has also been given in this behalf and the calculation arrived at by the Board on the basis of 16 workmen is absolutely correct. Mr. Ganguli, Learned Counsel appearing for the Union has also supported the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for respondent no.1.10. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to substantiate the said argument by giving probable data in this behalf. The petitioner has been given ample opportunities which the petitioner has not availed. Considering the said aspect, this Court, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be called upon to decide such disputed aspect as the said finding is clearly the finding of fact given by the Board. A reference is also required to be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and Central Kamgar Union vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1995 II CLR 217. In paragraph 7 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court after considering the definition of employer in the Act has observed as under:According to the above definition of employer he may be (i) an employer of an unprotected worker engaged by or through a contractor, that is, the principal employer, (ii) an employer of any other unprotected worker, that is, a person who has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment or the person to whom the affairs of such establishment are entrusted whether such person is called an agent, manager or by any other name prevailing in the scheduled appointment.8. When Section 2 (7) defines principal employer as meaning an employer who engages unprotected workers by or through a contractor in any scheduled employment, principal employer can be classified or described as employer when he engages unprotected workers by or through contractor of the scheduled employment.11. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in our view, it was not open for the Petitioner to take the work in question from other employees or from other agency bypassing the claim of registered workers and as such the registered workers can be said to be in scheduled employment. It is not in dispute that loading and unloading activities are still going on at the concerned place, though through different agencies. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, we do not find any error either of law or of jurisdiction in the impugned order of the Board.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is no doubt true, as argued by Mr. Rele, that the factory has now been closed and manufacturing activity is also closed from the State of Maharashtra. The manufacturing activities are at present carried on at Halol, in the State of Gujarat. This fact is not in dispute.So far as the scheduled employment is concerned, any employment specified in Schedule is to be treated as scheduled employment. As per the schedule, clause (1) thereof defines employment in Iron and Steel Market or shops in connection with loading, unloading, stacking, carrying, weighing, measuring or such other work including work preparatory or incidental to such operations. On going through the said schedule, it is abundantly clear that such operations are to be considered as scheduled employment. Any work, therefore, which is in connection with loading and unloading in connection with the business of the petitioner, the same is covered in the scheduled employment. There is no requirement in the law that unless the manufacturing activity itself is going that in those circumstances only the act in question is applicable. Even if something is manufactured outside the State but if the loading and unloading operations are carried out in connection with the business of the Company as per the schedule, such operation of loading and unloading certainly be covered under the provisions of the Act. It is not in dispute that manufactured articles are brought within the State and loading and unloading operations have been carried out in the State of MaharashtraBoard has found that the Act and the Scheme is applicable irrespective of the fact that the factory of the petitioner is closed or stopped manufacturing activity in Mazgaon area. Regarding the argument of Mr. Rele that the amount is not calculated properly, it is to be seen that the Board had given ample opportunity to the petitioner but the petitioner has remained absent for the hearings fixed by the Board, even though ample opportunity was given to the petitioner in this behalf. Document produced in the petition is not reflecting a to whether such calculation is for 8 or 16 workers who have registered with the Board. The learned counsel for the Respondent Board has submitted that appropriate breakup has also been given in this behalf and the calculation arrived at by the Board on the basis of 16 workmen is absolutely correct. Mr. Ganguli, Learned Counsel appearing for the Union has also supported the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for respondent no.1.10. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to substantiate the said argument by giving probable data in this behalf. The petitioner has been given ample opportunities which the petitioner has not availed. Considering the said aspect, this Court, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be called upon to decide such disputed aspect as the said finding is clearly the finding of fact given by the Board. A reference is also required to be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and Central Kamgar Union vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1995 II CLR 217.Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in our view, it was not open for the Petitioner to take the work in question from other employees or from other agency bypassing the claim of registered workers and as such the registered workers can be said to be in scheduled employment. It is not in dispute that loading and unloading activities are still going on at the concerned place, though through different agencies. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, we do not find any error either of law or of jurisdiction in the impugned order of the Board.