Unprotected worker under the Mathadi Act covers all manual workers in scheduled employment, not only casually engaged labour.

The expression "unprotected worker" in the Maharashtra Mathadi Act was construed to include every manual worker engaged or to be engaged in a scheduled employment, not merely casually engaged workers or those lacking protection under other labour laws. Reading Sections 2(11) and 2(12) together, the Court treated the wording as plain and unambiguous and refused to add words omitted by the Legislature. Legislative history, committee material, administrative practice, stare decisis, and Article 254 were held unable to override the statutory text. Sections 21 and 22 were noted as preserving more favourable existing benefits and exemption mechanisms, so the broader construction created no inconsistency.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "unprotected worker" in Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 means only casually engaged workers or extends to every manual worker engaged or to be engaged in a scheduled employment, including workers otherwise protected under other labour laws; and whether the earlier line of decisions, legislative history, contemporaneous administrative understanding, or Article 254 of the Constitution of India required a narrower construction.

Analysis: The definitions in Sections 2(11) and 2(12) were read together. Section 2(12) gives an inclusive definition of "worker", and Section 2(11) covers a manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment. The language was held to be plain, clear, and unambiguous, and the use of the word "means" was treated as excluding a wider competing meaning. The Court rejected the attempt to read into the provision words that the Legislature had deliberately omitted, and held that doing so would amount to supplying a casus omissus. The Preamble, Statement of Objects and Reasons, committee reports, and asserted administrative practice were held not to override the express statutory text. Sections 21 and 22 were relied upon to show that the Act itself preserves more favourable existing benefits and allows exemption where appropriate, so the broader construction did not create inconsistency. The objections based on stare decisis and contemporanea expositio failed because the earlier cases had not actually decided the precise interpretative question, and the executive understanding could not control the statutory meaning. Article 254 was held irrelevant to the interpretative exercise.

Conclusion: The expression "unprotected worker" includes every manual worker engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment, regardless of protection under other labour enactments, and the contrary interpretation was rejected.

---