BHUWALKA STEEL INDUS. LTD. versus BOMBAY IRON & STEEL LABOUR BO. & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 17-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 618 
A 
BHUWALKA STEEL INDUS. LTD. 
j 
• 
v. 
BOMBAY IRON & STEEL LABOUR BO. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8452 of 2009) 
8 
DECEMBER 17, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Labour laws: 
t 
• 
c 
Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Worl<ers 
(Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 - ss. 
2(11 }, (12), 21 and 22 -
Term 'unprotected worker' -
Interpretation of - Scope of s. 2(11) - Held: Language of s. 
2(11) is plain, unambiguous and clear, thus, not capable of 
D any other meaning - It means that every worl<er, who is doing 
manual work and is engaged or to be engaged in any 
~ . 
scheduled employment, would become an 'unprotected 
worl<er' - In the Preamble of the Act, 'unprotected manual 
worl<ers' is mentioned in wider sense - It displays the intention 
E of State Government to make better provision for such worl<ers 
-
lnt~rpretation of term 'unprotected worl<er' not hit by doctrine 
of stare decisis - Also, such interpretation not violative of 
doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et 
Fortissima In Lege - Plea that such worl<ers who were covered 
" 
F 
by other Central Acts could not be covered uls. 2(11), being 
a State Act, not maintainable - Interpretation of statutes -
Doctrines - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 254. 
In the instant matters, the two concurrent judgments 
of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, one by the 
G majority that the interpretation by *Century Textile and 
Industries Ltd. case of the term "unprotected worker" in 
s. 2(11) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other 
Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) 
Act, 1969 that it is only the casual workmen who come 
H 
618 
BHUWALKA STEEL INDUS. LTD. v. BOMBAY IRON & 619 
STEEL LABOUR BD. & ANR. 
• t 
within the purview of the Act, is not correct and proper A 
and is overruled; and the judgment of Single Judge that 
u/s. 2(11) of the Act, 'unprotected worker' means every 
manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any 
scheduled employment, irrespective of whether he is 
protected by other labour legislations or not, and the 
B 
definition is not restricted to those manual workers who 
t 
-I 
are casually engaged, is under challenge. 
Dismissing the matters, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Full Bench was absolutely correct in c 
coming to the conclusions that it did. [Para 42] [684-H] 
2.1. The term "worker" is used in the definition of 
'unprotected worker' in s. 2(11) of the Maharashtra 
Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of 
_,., 
;. 
Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969. Therefore, while D 
considering the s. 2 (11), the scope of the term 'worker' 
u/s. 2 (12) of the Act, is to be considered. The definition 
of the term 'worker' is an inclusive definition. It includes 
a worker, who is engaged by the employer directly or 
through any agency and it is not necessary that such E 
worker gets the wages or not. The term 'wages' is also 
defined in s. 2(13) of the Act. Therefore, even if such 
">: 
person does not earn the wages, as contemplated in s. 
2(13), such person who is engaged to do manual work 
in any scheduled employment, would be a worker. 
F 
Further, even if such worker is not employed in the strict 
sense of the term by an employer or a contractor, but is 
working with the permission or under the agreement with 
the employer or contractor, even then such worker 
would be a 'worker' within the meaning of s. 2(12) of the 
G 
t 
Act. The only exception is that such worker should not 
be a member of employer's family. The definitions of 
'worker' and 'unprotected worker' given in ss. 2(11) and 
2(12) of the Act would have to be read together for 
realizing the scope of the s. 2(1 ~) of the Act. Therefore, 
H 
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A the language of s. 2(11) is plain, unambiguous and clear 
and thus, is not capable of any other meaning. It means 
that every worker, who is doing manual work and is 
engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled 
employment, would be covered by that definition and 
8 would become an unprotected worker. The use of the 
word 'means' which then positively rules aside any other 
meaning than the one which is dependent upon the plain 
and unambiguous language of the provision. [Paras 14 
and 19] [654-D-H; 655-A-B; 658-A-B] 
C 
*Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. vs. State of 
Maharashtra 2000 II CLR 279; Kay Kay Embroideries Pvt. 
Ltd. vs. Cloth Market and Shops Board, Mumbai & Ors. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.