Writ Petition No. 4323 of 2012. Case: Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Nagpur and Wardha District, Mathadi and Unprotected Workers, Labour Board and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 4323 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.B. Puranik, Adv. and For Respondents: M.R. Pillai, Adv. |
| Judges | B. P. Dharmadhikari and S. B. Shukre, JJ. |
| Issue | Labour and Industrial Law |
| Judgement Date | October 01, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
S. B. Shukre, J.
-
Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
-
By this petition, the grievance raised by the petitioner is that the order dated 12/08/2011 passed by the respondent no. 1 increasing rates of wages payable to Mathadi workers by 23% is arbitrary and that the respondent no. 1 has failed to perform its duty in taking appropriate steps to make full and adequate utilization of Mathadi workers.
-
The petitioner is a Government Limited Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. It deals in manufacture and sale of steel and its allied products. For the purposes of marketing the steel products manufactured by it, the petitioner has established a Central Marketing Organization, having sales offices situated across India. One of its branch sale offices is situated at Nagpur. For the purpose of storing and warehousing the steel products, the petitioner has established a warehouse at village Butibori situated near Nagpur. The steel products of the petitioner are transported to Butibori Railway Station by goods trains, where they are unloaded to the ground and then loaded on the trucks for being dispatched, wholly or partly, to petitioner's warehouse. If the goods are not sent to petitioner's warehouse at Butibori, the goods are loaded on the trucks of the buyers to whom the goods are sold at the railway station itself. For the goods sent to warehouse, again unloading and loading operation is required to be undertaken. In addition to that, stacking of goods in the warehouse also becomes necessary. For performing the aforesaid activities, manual workers (hereinafter referred to as "Mathadi workers") are deployed. The provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "Mathadi Act" for short) being applicable to these operations undertaken by the petitioner, which is a registered employer with the Mathadi Board i.e. respondent no. 1, the Mathadi workers sent by respondent no. 1 for carrying out the said operations, have to be accepted by the petitioner. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Mathadi Act has framed a scheme known as "Nagpur Grocery Markets or Shops, Railway Yards and Goods Sheds, Public Transport Markets Vehicles, Khoka Making Establishments, Timber Markets and Shops, Steel Markets or Shops, Factories and Other Connected Establishments, Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) (Amendment) Scheme 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "Scheme" for short).
-
It is the contention of the petitioner that the Board constituted under Section 6 or 6A of the Mathadi Act, while fixing the rates of wages payable to Mathadi workers, has to take into consideration the provisions contained in the Scheme, in particular the provision of Clause 33. The petitioner points out that the Board which passed the impugned order has been constituted in terms of Section 6A of the Mathadi Act i.e. respondent no. 1, a one man Board and not in terms of Section 6 of the Mathadi Act, which has a representative or popular character. Petitioner submits that Clause 33 of the Scheme which deals with wages, allowances and other conditions of registered workers is relevant for the purposes of this petition. According to the petitioner, Sub-clause (5) of Clause 33 of the Scheme provides for the factors to be considered by the Board while fixing or revising or modifying the conditions of service of the registered workers. The factors prescribed therein relate to cost of living, the prevalent conditions of service in comparable employments in the local area, the capacity of the registered employers to pay and other relevant circumstances.
-
Petitioner further submits that way back in February, 1991, the respondent no. 1 had fixed the formula of wages payable to the registered Mathadi workers. At that time substantial work of loading and unloading was being done manually. The respondent no. 1 then devised the formula for determining rates of wages payable to Mathadi workers by taking into consideration the manual nature of operations and other relevant factors. The wages were divided into two components, namely, basic wages and dearness allowance. For fixing the rate of dearness allowance, the year of 1960 was taken as the base and it was provided that the rates would be revised every year twice, firstly in the month of February and secondly in the month of August. The formula envisaged 2% increase for every increase of 10 points in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Because of this formula, petitioner further submits, over a period of time, the rates of wages payable to Mathadi workers saw steep rise so much so that petitioner was required to make a representation to respondent no. 1 in the year 2004 for reduction in the rates of wages as they were going beyond the financial capacity of the petitioner. Since, by the year 2004, the steel material handling operations, due to technological innovations, had undergone drastic changes with manual operations having reduced to a minimum and use of cranes for handling the steel material having become the order of the day, petitioner also requested respondent no. 1 to rationalize the rates accordingly. There were negotiations between the representatives of the petitioner and the Trade Unions representing Mathadi workers and as a result, an agreement between the two was struck, whereby rates of wages payable to Mathadi workers were fixed. The rates, so agreed, were some what lower than the existing rates. These rates were to be effective till 8/5/2008. However, there was no optimization in number of Mathadi workers sent to establishments of the petitioner.
-
Petitioner submits that even before the expiry of the term of the agreement on 8/5/2008, Mathadi workers made another demand for revision of wages. Several meetings were held between respondent no. 1 and representatives of Mathadi workers. While petitioner pleaded for rationalization of rates taking into account reduction of manual operations and increased use of cranes for handling steel material, increase in turn over, need for reducing number of Mathadi workers being deputed at railway siding and warehouse at Butibori and other relevant factors, representatives of Mathadi workers stressed upon rising cost of living. No agreement between two sides could be reached and, therefore, the then one man Board considered various factors and by its order dated 17/1/2009, revised the rates of wages. The order gave rise of 42.29% over the existing rates of wages payable to Mathadi workers. However, the one man Board rejected the demand of Trade Unions for revising the rates after every six months and reverting back to 1991 formula. The one man Board further directed that revised rates would remain in force during the period from 6/5/2008 to 31/3/2011. Petitioner submits that although the increase of 42.29% given by one man Board was not acceptable to it, it did not challenge the order. Petitioner further submits that there was also reduction in turn over during the period from years 2008-2009 to 2010-2011, as a result of which there was increase in the amount of wages and levy paid by the petitioner.
-
The rates so fixed were due for revision after March, 2011 and there was once again a demand by respondent nos. 2 to 4 for revising the rates payable to Mathadi workers. Petitioner made an offer of Rs. 40 Per MT of material handled at Butibori railway siding and Rs. 28 Per MT for material handled at Butibori warehouse after calculating the weighted average of quantity handled and the amount paid during the period 2008-2009 to 2010-2011. Petitioner contended that there was no justification for keeping different rate structures, one for handling material weighing above 4 MT and the one below 4 MT as most of the operations were being done mechanically and not manually. Petitioner submits that all that was required to be done by Mathadi workers was to put a sling around the steel bundles and attach them to the giant hooks of cranes which would lift the material and put down on the ground or reload on the trucks. Petitioner also pleaded that average of these two different rate structures be taken and on this average, the petitioner also submitted, 10% increase could be given. Petitioner also raised the issue of deputing excess Mathadi workers and stressed the need for deploying optimum man power so that each Mathadi worker would get three times more wages on same turn over even without increasing the rates of wages. Petitioner also submitted that steel business was highly competitive and it had to sell the steel at competitive prices for which purpose it was necessary for it to reduce the costs of inputs, so that it would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial