MAHARASHTRA RAJYA MATHADI TRANSPORT AND CENTRAL KAMGAR UNION versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 920 · Decided: 01-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHARASHTRA RAJYA MATHADI TRANSPORT AND 
CENTRAL KAMGAR UNION 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
B 
MAY 1, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH, N. VENKATACHALA AND 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) 
Maharashtra Mathad~ Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation 
' 
' 
c of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969-Vegetable Markets Unprotected 
Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1985-Clause 
14-11.egistration of Hundekaris as employers-Claim of-Whether Hun-
dekaris as a class are employers within meaning of sub-sec (3) of section 
2-Held, No. 
D 
Hundekaris wanted to get themselves registered as employers with 
the Vegetable Markets Labour Board of Greater Bombay under clause 14 
of the Vegetable Markets Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employ-
ment and Welfare) Scheme, 1985, made by the Government of 
E 
Maharashtra under section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and 
other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 
1969. The appellant union of Mathadi workers objected to registration of 
Hundekaris with the Board as employers on the ground that they were not 
the employers as envisaged by the Act and hence they were not also 
employers who were entitled to get registered under clause 14 of the 
F Scheme. The Maharashtra Government, to resolve the dispute between 
Hundekaris and Mathadi workers took a decision dated 6-1- 1989 that as 
per the provisions of Section 2(3) of Mathadi Act and rule 14 of the scheme 
hundekaris were operating as clearing agents they were having a right and 
empowered to get themselves registered as 'owners'. This decision was 
G 
challenged by the Mathadi workers by filing Writ Petition. The High Court 
dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. 
The question raised for consideration was whether the Government 
• r 
was right in reaching the conclusion that 'Hundekaris' as a class were 
employers within the meaning of sub section (3) of Section 2 of the Act and 
H clause 14 of the Scheme. 
920 
) 
~- I 
M.R.M.TI'T. AND C.K.UNION v. STATE [VENKATACHALA,J.] 
921 · 
Allowing the appeal partly, this Court 
A 
HELD : The Vegetable Markets Labour Board of Greater Bombay 
can register Hnndekaris, by whatever name they may be called, under 
clause 14 of the Scheme as the employers only where it is established that 
they are the owners of the vegetable markets or establishments where they 
are carrying on the business either having ultimate control over such 
establishments or being entrnsted with the carrying on the affairs of such 
markets or establishiµent and otherwise. If any of the Hundekaris, by 
whatever name may be called, are registered as employers under clanse 14 
B 
of the Scheme not being the owners of the vegetable markets or estab-
lishments in the areas concerned having either ultimate control over them C 
or being entrnsted with the carrying on the affairs of the same, their 
registration is liable to be cancelled. [931-B, CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7415 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.93 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 510 of 1989. 
K.K. Singhvi, B.N. Singhvi and Rajeev Kumar Singh for the Appel-
lants. 
H.N. Salve, AB. Bhasme, Girish Kedia, Ramesh Singh, Rakhi Varma 
and Ms. Bina Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
E 
VENKATACHALA, J. Are 'Hundekaris' entitled to get registered F 
with the Vegetable Market Labour Board of Greater Bombay - "the Board" 
as "Employers" under Clause 14 of the Vegetable Markets Unprotected 
Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1985- "the 
Scheme" made by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 4(1) of 
the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation G 
of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969- "the Act" is the short question 
that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave filed by 
Mathadi Workers Union - the appellant. 
The factual background in which the said question arises for our 
consideration is the following: 
H 
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[i995] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Mathadi workers are the members of the appellant-Union. They are 
unprotected workers who carry out the manual work in vegetable markets 
(including onions and potatoes markets) connected with loading, unload-
ing, stacking, carrying, weighing, measuring, filing, stitching, sorting, clean-
ing of vegetables -. a scheduled employment specified under the Act. That 
on January 1, 1985, the Government of Maharashtra made a scheme 
B re

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