LexPEPSICO INDIA HOLDING P. LTD. versus GROCERY MARKET & SHOPS BOARD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 305
PEPSICO !NOIA HOLDING P. LTD.
v.
GROCERY MARKET & SHOPS BOARD & ORS.
I
(Civil Appeal No. 9999 of2010 etc.)
FEBRUARY 12, 2016
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.]
Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers
(Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 - Grocery
Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment
and Welfare) Scheme, 1970 -Applicability of the Act and the Scheme
to the unprotected workers in petro-chemical factory and to the
company manufacturing drinking water and soft-drinks - State
Government rejecting the applications uls. 5 of the 1969 Act held
that Jhe 1969 Act and the 1970 Scheme were applicable to the
factories in question - Writ petitions against the orders of State
Government dismissed - On appeal, plea that 1970 scheme was
ultra vires the 1969 Act; and that the Act and the Scheme did not
apply to the factories in question - Held: No part of 1970 scheme is
ultra vires the 1969 Act - the State rightly decided that 1969 Act and
1970 Scheme were applicable to the factories in question - High
Court rightly did not interfere with the decision of the State.
Words and Phrases:
'Establishment' - Meaning of. in the context of Maharashtra
Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of
A
B
c
D
E
Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969.
F
'Grocer)!' -:- Meaninf{ of.
Dismissin2 the appeals, the Court
HELD: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10000 OF 2010: 1. Clause 5
of the Schedule to the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other
Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act,
1969 is a residuary clause which would rope in employment in
factories in connection with loading, unloading, etc. carried on by
workers not covered by any other entries in the Schedule.
Admittedly, manufacture of petro-chemicals in factories is not
covered by any other entry including entry 4 to the Schedule.
305
G
H
306
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
For this reason, the 1;rovisions of the Grocery Markets or Shops
Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare)
Scheme, 1970 dealing with manufacture of petro-chemicals in
factories would be within the coverage of the residuary entry i.e.
Item 5 of the Schedule to the 1969 Act. This being so, no part of
the 1970 Scheme is ultra vires the 1969 Act. [Para 7] [322-C-E]
2. Clause 2(1)(1) of the 1970 Scheme is intra vires Section
1( 4A) table column 4 Item 5 of the 1969 Act. It is clear that the
expression "products including fertilizers" is wider than the
expression "chemical products including fertilizers". The 1969
Act's terminology being wider than the terminology of the
impugned 1970 Scheme, obviously the 1970 Scheme when it
speaks of "chemical products" manufactured in factories and
covered by entry 5 in the schedule to the 1969 Act would be intra
vires the expression "products including fertilizers". [Para 8) [322-
E-G)
3. "Petro chemical products" would be a species of the
genus "chemical products". In fact, the appellant has admitted
that it manufactures polystyrene (granules). Polystyrene in turn
has been described as an inexpensive and hard plastic which is a
vinyl polymer. A perusal of the report of the working group on
chemic:lls and petro chemicals in the 11" Five Year Plan from
2007-2008 to 2011-2012 made by the Department of Chemicals
and Petro Chemicals, it is evident that not only are petrochemicals
derived from various chemical compounds, but also that petro
chemical manufacturing involves among other things the
production of plastics. From the report made by the Inquiry Officer
appointed nuder Section 13 of the Act, it is clear that the conclusion
reached by the Government in its order dated 24.6.2008 that
petro-chemical products are a species of chemical products and
that the appellant manufactures chemical products, cannot be said
to be perverse. [Paras 9, 10 and 11) [322-H; 323-A, F; 324-B]
4. Sections 3 and 4 of the 1969 Act refer to a scheme which
provides for registration of unprotected workers "in any
scheduled employment or employments" (as per Section 3(1) of
the 1969 Act). Further, Section 4(1) of the 1969 Act also makes
it clear that the State Government may make one or more Schemes
for any scheduled employment or group of scheduled
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING P. LTD. v. GROCERY MARKET & 307
SHOPS BOARD
employments. On a reading of these provisions, it becomes clear
that there can be a composExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.