2016 (2) TMI 1228 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms 1969 Act & 1970 Scheme apply to manufacturing companies

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the applicability of the 1969 Act and 1970 Scheme to the appellant companies involved in manufacturing ... Interpretation of statute - provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 - whether any scheme applies to any class of unprotected workers? HELD THAT:- The provisions of the 1970 Scheme 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 - 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'. The conclusion reached by the Government in its order dated 24.6.2008 that petrochemical products are a species of chemical products and that the Appellant manufactures chemical products, cannot be said to be perverse. We must not forget that the High Court in dismissing the writ petition was exercising the power of judicial review which would not go to the merits of the controversy before the Government but would only go to perversity -that no reasonable person invested with the same power could possibly arrive at the conclusion arrived at by the Government. This Court, while approving a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, has in the BHUWALKA STEEL INDUS. LTD. AND OTHERS VERSUS BOMBAY IRON & STEEL LABOUR BD. & ANR. [2009 (12) TMI 697 - SUPREME COURT] interpreted the expression 'unprotected worker' occurring in Section 2(11) of the 1969 Act as meaning every manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment, irrespective of whether or not he is protected by other labour legislations. The State Government specifically arrived at a finding that Mathadi work was carried out in the company by two cooperative societies who had the work done by employing workers and got compensated by the Appellant company. This being the case, there is no factual foundation for Shri Cama's argument that it is the Appellant's purchasers and not the Appellant company itself that is the principal employer under the Act. It was incumbent upon the writ Petitioner not only to take up the plea of repugnancy and implied repeal but also to state as a fact that what the workmen would be entitled to under the 1969 State Act would not be as beneficial as what they would be entitled to under the 1970 Central enactment. This would then give the Respondent Board, in turn, an opportunity of either admitting or denying this factual averment. There being no pleading to this effect in the writ petition before the High Court, it is clear that it is not possible for us to accede to Shri Cama's request to go into the argument on repugnancy and implied repeal. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 and the Grocery Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1970.2. Applicability of the 1969 Act and 1970 Scheme to the manufacture of petrochemical and chemical products.3. Validity of the 1970 Scheme under the 1969 Act.4. Definition and scope of 'chemical products' and 'petrochemical products.'5. Jurisdiction and correctness of the State Government's decision under Section 5 of the 1969 Act.6. Applicability of the 1969 Act to soft drink and bottled water manufacturing industries.7. Consistency of the 1969 Act with the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 and the Grocery Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1970.The appeals involved interpreting the provisions of the 1969 Act and the 1970 Scheme. The court noted that the 1969 Act aimed to regulate employment and provide welfare for unprotected manual workers, and the 1970 Scheme was created to ensure adequate supply and proper utilization of such workers in specific employments.2. Applicability of the 1969 Act and 1970 Scheme to the manufacture of petrochemical and chemical products.The State Government concluded that the 1970 Scheme applied to the appellant's company manufacturing polystyrene, a chemical product. The court upheld this decision, rejecting the argument that petrochemical products were not covered under the 1969 Act. It emphasized that petrochemical products are a subset of chemical products.3. Validity of the 1970 Scheme under the 1969 Act.The court rejected the contention that the 1970 Scheme was ultra vires the 1969 Act. It clarified that Entry 5 of the Schedule to the 1969 Act, being a residuary clause, covered employments not specified in other entries, including the manufacture of petrochemicals. Thus, the 1970 Scheme was within the scope of the 1969 Act.4. Definition and scope of 'chemical products' and 'petrochemical products.'The court agreed with the State Government's finding that polystyrene production involved chemical processes, making it a chemical product. It referred to reports and definitions indicating that petrochemicals are derived from chemical compounds and that their manufacturing involves producing plastics, supporting the inclusion of petrochemicals under chemical products.5. Jurisdiction and correctness of the State Government's decision under Section 5 of the 1969 Act.The court upheld the State Government's decision, stating it was not perverse and fell within the jurisdiction under Section 5 of the 1969 Act. The decision was based on substantial evidence and reasonable interpretation of the Act and Scheme, ensuring the welfare of unprotected workers.6. Applicability of the 1969 Act to soft drink and bottled water manufacturing industries.In a separate appeal, the court addressed the applicability of the 1969 Act to a company manufacturing soft drinks and bottled water. The State Government and High Court found that the raw materials used (e.g., sugar, carbonic acid) were grocery items, making the final products grocery items. The court upheld this interpretation, noting that grocery items included food and drink sold in grocery stores or supermarkets.7. Consistency of the 1969 Act with the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.The court rejected the argument of repugnancy between the 1969 Act and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It noted that the appellant had not raised this issue before the High Court and that the 1969 Act provided more favorable benefits to workers, which would prevail under Section 30(1) of the 1970 Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the applicability of the 1969 Act and 1970 Scheme to the appellant companies. The court emphasized the welfare objectives of the legislation, ensuring better terms and conditions for unprotected workers in various industries, including chemical and soft drink manufacturing.