Case: Maharashjtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union &amp; Another Vs. The Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board &amp; Others

In the instant case, assuming there was dispute and the Minister for labour in the State of Maharashtra could intervene, any decision would be binding if the mandatory requirement of Section 5 of the Act had been complied with. This has not been done. On the contrary, the Minutes would indicate that the iron work in the yard can only be done by the workers registered with the Iron Board under the scheme of 1970. The Minutes noted that the Minister asked whether there was any objection on the part of Chairman of Respondent No. 1, to club the work at Boisar Railway Yard, keep it with Iron Board and get it done jointly from the workers of Railway Board and Iron Board. It is recorded that the Chairman gave no objection. The correctness of this minutes are disputed in the affidavit filed by Mr. Sudhir Gaikawad on behalf of Respondent No. 1. We need not test the correctness of the Minutes, as admittedly the work had to be done by the workers registered with Respondent No. 1 Board. The exercise of issuing directions as set out in the Minutes of 8.2.2006 would be beyond the powers conferred on Respondent No. 1. The finality to a decision taken by Respondent No. 1 would only apply if there was dispute about the applicability of any Scheme and the State of Maharashtra after consulting the committee constituted under Section 14 of the Act, had given its decision. In our opinion, the Minutes of 8.2.2006 purporting to record certain directions was clearly without authority of law and liable to be quashed and set aside. At the highest, the proceedings of the Minutes can only be understood as an intervention to resolve a dispute raised by one of the Parties and therefore the decision, being not one under the Act would not be binding. Apart from that the Minister ought to have recognised his limits on intervention in the matter and issuing directions. Once there be an Act and a scheme framed thereunder, Respondent No. 3 State is bound to give effect to the scheme and not allow extraneous considerations, unconnected with the scheme to interfere with the functioning of the Statutory Board and powers conferred on it. Respondent No. 1 can only intervene when there be power and not otherwise. In the instant case, the action of Respondent No. 3 was clearly contrary to the Act and the scheme. 9. We then come to the third issue in the matter of registration of workmen with respondent No.1 Board. The scheme itself provides for the manner in which the workmen have to be registered under Clause 11 a register must be maintained on monthly basis in respect of monthly workers and a pool register of workers other than those on the monthly register. Clause 13 then reads as : "13. Fixation of number of workers on the registers: The Board shall determine before the commencement of registration in any category, the numbers of workers required in that category in consultation with the employers." Clause 15 deals with the registration of the existing and new workers.Clause 15(1)(c) provides that the registration of workers in any new category shall be from among the workers who have been or were working in the said employment on any such date as the Board may specify in this behalf provided, the worker is medically fit and is not more than 60 years of age.On a reading of Clauses 15, 16 and 17, it is clear that new workers can be registered, but that must necessarily contemplate that there is sufficiency of work available. There is also provision in special circumstances to employ unregistered workers. In other words, it is the Board that must satisfy itself, that there is sufficiency of work for the existing workers in Pool before new workers are admitted in the Pool. Workers cannot be registered if there be insufficient work or it would result in denial of fair wages to the existing workers registered under the scheme for the full working hours for the day. If only a fair wage can be paid to existing registered workers, can more workers be registered. There can be no apportionment of poverty. The scheme has been framed with the avowed object of efficient performance of work and generally for making better provisions for the terms and conditions of employment of such workers and to make provisions for their general welfare. The object of the Act and scheme is to ensure that unregistered workers are not exploited and that they get regularity of employment and decent wages. This object would be defeated, if the respondent Boards are called upon to engage workmen and register them with the Board and include them in the Pool, if otherwise, there is no sufficiency of work. The decision of this court of 13.10.2006 has resulted in the existing registered registered workers of other tolis of Respondent No. 1 being amalgamated. Consequently from 8 workmen in the Toli No. 235, there are now 42 workmen constituting new toli No. 477 who are doing the work. In these circumstances, in our opinion, considering the workload and the affidavit filed by Sudhir Gaikawad, more specifically Paragraph No.8, which point out that in the past there are instances where sufficient work load was not available to the registered Mathadi Workers of Respondent No. 1 for long periods, it would not be appropriate to direct to induct more workers in the toli. The other aspect of the matter is that from 24 applications received by Respondent No. 2 Board, 20 were workmen who were registered in 2001. This clearly would indicate that there was sufficient work with Respondent No. 2, as otherwise, those workers could not have been registered with the Respondent No. 2. At any rate, the decision, whether to register more workers and or allot them to existing Tolis, will be a decision solely of the Iron and Steel Board and not of the Respondent Government.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]It is therefore, clear from the 1976 scheme that it will not apply for work, which is covered by another scheme which in the instant case is the Scheme of 1970. Under the Scheme of 1976, the registered workers of Respondent No. 2 can carry on all work except the work in respect of which other schemes have been framed in terms of the proviso to clause 2(2) of the 1976 scheme. There can therefore, be no dispute, nor can the workman of toli No. 189 or for that matter Respondent No. 2 contend that the work of unloading of steel and iron at Boisar of M/s. Jindal can only be done by registered workers of Respondent No. 1. In fact the communication of 4.6.2005 would indicate that a similar dispute had been raised by workers of toli No. 189. A joint meeting was held between Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Boards by the Jt. Labour Commissioner and after elaborate discussions, it was unanimously decided that no work of Jindal Steel company can be allotted to toli No. 189 registered with Railway Board. This was communicated by the Joint Labour Commissioner on 4.6.2005. It is therefore, clear, considering the two schemes that the work connected with the loading etc. of iron and steel falls within the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 and can only be done by the workers registered with Respondent No. 1. Relief to that extent sought for by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6902 of 2006 cannot be granted as that work under the 1976 scheme could not have been done by the workers registered with Respondent No. 2 Board. The first question answeredour opinion, the Minutes of 8.2.2006 purporting to record certain directions was clearly without authority of law and liable to be quashed and set aside. At the highest, the proceedings of the Minutes can only be understood as an intervention to resolve a dispute raised by one of the Parties and therefore the decision, being not one under the Act would not be binding. Apart from that the Minister ought to have recognised his limits on intervention in the matter and issuing directions. Once there be an Act and a scheme framed thereunder, Respondent No. 3 State is bound to give effect to the scheme and not allow extraneous considerations, unconnected with the scheme to interfere with the functioning of the Statutory Board and powers conferred on it. Respondent No. 1 can only intervene when there be power and not otherwise. In the instant case, the action of Respondent No. 3 was clearly contrary to the Act and thethese circumstances, in our opinion, considering the workload and the affidavit filed by Sudhir Gaikawad, more specifically Paragraph No.8, which point out that in the past there are instances where sufficient work load was not available to the registered Mathadi Workers of Respondent No. 1 for long periods, it would not be appropriate to direct to induct more workers in the toli. The other aspect of the matter is that from 24 applications received by Respondent No. 2 Board, 20 were workmen who were registered in 2001. This clearly would indicate that there was sufficient work with Respondent No. 2, as otherwise, those workers could not have been registered with the Respondent No. 2. At any rate, the decision, whether to register more workers and or allot them to existing Tolis, will be a decision solely of the Iron and Steel Board and not of the Respondent Government.