Full Judgment Text
WP No. 9100/13
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
3 WRIT PETITION NO. 9100 OF 2013
WITH CA/1/2014 IN WP/9100/2013 WITH CA/2869/2015 IN
WP/9100/2013
SHRI. NISAR AHMED KHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mrs. Pradnya Talekar h/f. Mr. S.B. Talekar
AGP for Respondent 1/State : Mr. P.G. Borade
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi
Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. M.S. Karad
Advocate for Respondents 4 : Mr. P.P. Mandlik h/f. Mr. Amol Gandhi
Advocate for Respondents 5 to 9 : Mr. V.D. Salunke
...
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 16, 2018.
ORDER : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
1) The petition is filed under Articles 12, 15, 19 (1)(g), 25
r/w. Article 226 of the Constitution of India for relief of quashing
and setting aside the order dated 3.8.2012 made by the
Aurangabad Mathadi and Unprotected Workers Board and Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Board' for short) created under the Maharashtra Act No. XXX 1969
(the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers
(Regulation and Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for short). By this order, the Board has
revised wages for the period 1.6.2012 to 31.5.2014. The rates are
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
2
increased by 24% in respect of workers working at the Maharashtra
State Warehousing Corporation, Aurangabad and the rates are
increased by 18% in respect of the workers working at railway
rake point. Both the sides are heard.
2) The petitioner is a proprietor of one concern and is also
a contractor in transport business. The petitioner transports goods
from railway rake point Aurangabad to godowns of the Maharashtra
State Warehouse Corporation. For that purpose, he is required to
use the labour force at both the points.
3) The petitioner had entered into a contract with
Warehouse Corporation initially for the period of two years starting
from 1.9.2010. The period was extended from time to time.
4) It is contended that as per the provisions of the Act,
the Board is expected to hear all the concerns before revising the
rates of wages. It is contended that hike in the wages proposed in
May 2012 was not acceptable even to Warehouse Corporation and
that was intimated to the Board. It is contended that without
considering the objections of concerned like the petitioner, the
rates came to be revised and the rate was increased by 24% for
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
3
Warehouse Corporation and 18% at railway rake point.
5) It is the case of petitioner that twelve members were
expected to constitute the Board, but at the time of hearing, only
nine members were present and out of them, only five members
have accepted the hike of aforesaid nature and further, many
members had expressed that the hike should be for future i.e. after
16.4.2013. It is contended that the hike is made applicable with
retrospective effect i.e. for the aforesaid period. On these grounds,
the order of the Board is challenged. There is also challenge to the
order on the ground that only one member took the final decision.
6) During arguments, it was submitted that after making
some interim order by this Court, the matter was taken to the
Hon'ble Minister and the Hon'ble Minister had advised the Board to
see that matter is reconsidered. It is contended that accordingly,
the Hon'ble Minister had given direction, but again decision is
informed that the parties are to act as per the previous fixation of
wages.
7) The submissions made and the record show that the
present petitioner, the contractor felt it difficult to pay the wages at
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
4
revised rates as he had entered in to contract with Warehouse
Corporation well back in the year 2010 and the period of contract
was extended on the previous terms and conditions. Thus, he was
getting the rates as per the contract made with Warehouse
Corporation in the year 2010, but the rates of labour wages came
to be increased even when he had accepted the contract on the
basis of previous rates. This cannot be a ground to challenge the
revision in rates. If the contractor had not anticipated such revision
of rates, he needs to blame himself and he cannot blame the Board
for that. The circumstance that even Warehouse Corporation had
informed about the probable objection, cannot be considered in
view of the powers of the Board and the object behind creation of
the aforesaid Act.
8) Though in the past, interim order was made by this
Court and this Court had expressed that it was advisable to
constitute full-fledged Board for taking decision on such matters,
the decision is already taken by the Board. Due to this
circumstance, this Court has carefully gone through the scheme of
the aforesaid Act. The purpose of the Act is mentioned in preamble
and it shows that it is made to regulate the employment of
unprotected manual workers engaged in employments like present
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
5
one, to make better provisions for their terms and conditions of
employment and to provide for their welfare.... The provision of
section 6 of the Act shows that the State Government is expected
to establish the Board by issuing notification in the Official Gazette
for any area and each Board shall be a body corporate, having
perpetual succession and common seal etc. The provision shows
that the Board shall consist of members nominated from time to
time by the State Government representing the employers, the
unprotected workers and the State Government. The provision of
section 6 (5) shows that the Chairman of the Board shall be one of
the members appointed to represent the State Government,
nominated in this behalf by the State Government. Section 6 (8)
provides that the procedure for the meeting of the Board shall be
regulated by the Board itself. The provision of section 6-A, which
allows one member Board to function is as follows :-
" 6A. POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO
APPOINT BOARD CONSISTING OF ONE
PERSON.-
(1) Where by reason of employers or unprotected
workers in any scheduled employment refusing to
nominate persons for representing them on the
Board or for any reason whatsoever, it appears to the
State Government that it is unable to constitute a
Board for such scheduled employment in accordance
with the provisions of section 6, the State
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
6
Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, appoint a person who shall hold office until
a Board is duly constituted under section 6 for such
scheduled employment.
(2) The person so appointed shall be deemed
to constitute the Board for the time being, and shall
exercise all the powers and perform and discharge all
the duties and functions conferred and imposed upon
the Board by or under this Act. He shall continue in
office until the day immediately preceding the date of
the first meeting of such Board.
(3) The persons constituting the Board shall
receive such remuneration from the fund of the
Board, and the terms and other conditions of service
shall be such as the State Government may
determine."
9) The provision of section 24 (2) of the Act shows that
supersession of the Board is possible and after the supersession of
the Board and until it is reconstituted, the powers, duties and
functions of the Board shall be exercised and shall be performed by
the State Government through such officer of the State
Government who can be appointed by the State Government. The
provision of section 25 shows that contracting out is not
permissible and such agreement is to be treated as void.
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
7
10) The order made by the Board dated 3.8.2012 shows
that it was a Board consisting of one person as provided in section
6-A of the Act. The submissions made show that one member
Board was functioning since the year 2005. The order made by one
member Board shows that the board had published notice in
respect of proposed rates in newspaper 'Loksatta' and the proposed
rates were informed to Warehouse Corporation, Unions of Transport
and Dock Workers, Unions of Contractors, Unions of Labours and
even to individual contractors. The order shows that the objections
were to be submitted up to 13.7.2012. The rates were declared by
this order for the period 1.6.2012 to 31.5.2014. Thus, it cannot be
said that the rates were fixed with retrospective operation as
process was started in the year 2012 itself and the proposed rates
were advertised.
11) In view of the aforesaid contents of the order, it cannot
be said that the contractors or representatives of association of
contractors were not informed about the process of revision which
was going on. It appears that Writ Petition No. 980/2012 was filed
by another contractor, but no relief was granted by this Court and
by order dated 6.8.2012, this Court had advised the said contractor
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
8
to approach the State authorities. It appears that representation
was made to the Labour Commissioner by many such contractors
including the present petitioner and they had prayed for reducing
the hike and allowing the hike only to the extent of 10% to 12%. It
was submitted by them that the Associations of Labours were
ready to work at lower rate also and that circumstance ought to
have been considered at the time of fixation of rates. Thus, it was
submitted that the lower rates would not have affected the labour
force. This circumstance or the proposition or the ground by the
contractors could not have been considered in view of the aforesaid
object behind the Act. The purpose of the Act is to prevent
exploitation of the unprotected workers. It is clear that the
contractors were getting big amount in between and reasonable
portion of money which Warehouse Corporation was giving, was
not reaching to the labour.
12) If the present petitioner had objection to the aforesaid
rates, he could have stopped to work which he had taken under the
contract, but that was not done and he continued to make
representations. He had approached the Corporation for increasing
the rates given to him under the contract. But, it appears that it
was not accepted. The submission was made by the learned
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
9
counsel for Corporation that due to other circumstances like
increase of the distance of transportation, some hike was given by
the Corporation.
13) The record shows that the Hon'ble Minister had
arranged a meeting to consider the say of all concerned on
26.2.2013 and separate intimation was given to the present
petitioner. It appears that notification was issued on 6.2.2013 to
appoint representatives of principal employers, representatives of
unprotected workers and also the Chairman. The meeting of this
newly constituted Board was held on 26.2.2013. In the meeting,
the representatives of the contractors expressed that they were not
ready to accept the rates fixed by one member Board. There are
minutes of the meeting dated 16.4.2013. But, no subject was
placed for reconsideration of the rates fixed by one member Board.
Representation was made to Labour Commissioner and he made a
report to the State Government, the Principal Secretary, Labour
and Industry that one member Board has considered everything
and after considering increase in the prices of essential
commodities etc., the rates were fixed. It was also informed that
different rates at different places were fixed by different Boards,
but that cannot be a ground for grievance as the nature of work at
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
10
every place is different. This report was sent on 2.8.2013 and on
that basis, the Government communicated the previous order on
26.9.2013 and it declared that the rates fixed were proper and
there was no possibility of change of those rates.
14) The aforesaid record and circumstances show that only
after following proper procedure, one member Board constituted as
provided under section 6A of the Act had fixed the rates and the
representatives of concerned parties were given an opportunity to
have their say. The parties like contractors, like the present
petitioner are bound to oppose the hike in rates as the hike in the
rates will reduce their margin, profit. If the contractors like the
present petitioner had continued to work on the basis of previous
rates with Warehouse Corporation, that cannot be a ground for
challenging the rates fixed by the Board. That circumstances
cannot be considered against the labour force for whose protection
the Act is made. It appears that the petitioner has raised another
dispute with Warehouse Corporation with regard to increase of
distance of transportation due to the order made by the authority
from Aurangabad city that the transport vehicles are not allowed to
enter the city during the day time and due to that, they are
required to use the other root which is of longer distance. Such
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
11
contentions also cannot be considered in the matter like present
one. In the matter like present one, the Board is expected to
consider as to what can be fair rate. On the basis of possibility of
revision of rates, the contractor can quote rates in contract with
other parties like Warehouse Corporation, but he cannot challenge
the rate itself on such ground. Further, the contention that at other
places rates are different, cannot be a ground as at other places
the nature of work is different and the goods which are lifted and
carried out may be also different.
15) During arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner
drew the attention of this Court to one application made by a
representative of the labours to newly constituted Board. This
Court was really surprised to see that the said member has
supported the contentions of the contractors when the
representatives of the labours are expected to work for the interest
of labourers. This circumstance shows as to how the exploitation of
the labour force takes place. The Government needs to be cautious
and the labours also need to be careful in selecting their
representatives, who are to work as members of the Board. Due to
all these circumstances, this Court holds that it is not possible to
interfere in the decision taken by the single member Board which
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
12
was properly constituted at the relevant time and which followed
the procedure which it was expected to follow. There is one more
circumstance in the present matter like the cheques given by the
present petitioner for making payment to the Board had bounced
and due to that, Warehouse Corporation was required to make
payment to the Board directly. The writ jurisdiction cannot be
exercised in favour of person like the present petitioner due to
aforesaid circumstances. In the result, the petition stands
dismissed. Civil Applications are disposed of.
[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
3 WRIT PETITION NO. 9100 OF 2013
WITH CA/1/2014 IN WP/9100/2013 WITH CA/2869/2015 IN
WP/9100/2013
SHRI. NISAR AHMED KHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mrs. Pradnya Talekar h/f. Mr. S.B. Talekar
AGP for Respondent 1/State : Mr. P.G. Borade
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi
Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. M.S. Karad
Advocate for Respondents 4 : Mr. P.P. Mandlik h/f. Mr. Amol Gandhi
Advocate for Respondents 5 to 9 : Mr. V.D. Salunke
...
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 16, 2018.
ORDER : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
1) The petition is filed under Articles 12, 15, 19 (1)(g), 25
r/w. Article 226 of the Constitution of India for relief of quashing
and setting aside the order dated 3.8.2012 made by the
Aurangabad Mathadi and Unprotected Workers Board and Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Board' for short) created under the Maharashtra Act No. XXX 1969
(the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers
(Regulation and Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for short). By this order, the Board has
revised wages for the period 1.6.2012 to 31.5.2014. The rates are
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
2
increased by 24% in respect of workers working at the Maharashtra
State Warehousing Corporation, Aurangabad and the rates are
increased by 18% in respect of the workers working at railway
rake point. Both the sides are heard.
2) The petitioner is a proprietor of one concern and is also
a contractor in transport business. The petitioner transports goods
from railway rake point Aurangabad to godowns of the Maharashtra
State Warehouse Corporation. For that purpose, he is required to
use the labour force at both the points.
3) The petitioner had entered into a contract with
Warehouse Corporation initially for the period of two years starting
from 1.9.2010. The period was extended from time to time.
4) It is contended that as per the provisions of the Act,
the Board is expected to hear all the concerns before revising the
rates of wages. It is contended that hike in the wages proposed in
May 2012 was not acceptable even to Warehouse Corporation and
that was intimated to the Board. It is contended that without
considering the objections of concerned like the petitioner, the
rates came to be revised and the rate was increased by 24% for
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
3
Warehouse Corporation and 18% at railway rake point.
5) It is the case of petitioner that twelve members were
expected to constitute the Board, but at the time of hearing, only
nine members were present and out of them, only five members
have accepted the hike of aforesaid nature and further, many
members had expressed that the hike should be for future i.e. after
16.4.2013. It is contended that the hike is made applicable with
retrospective effect i.e. for the aforesaid period. On these grounds,
the order of the Board is challenged. There is also challenge to the
order on the ground that only one member took the final decision.
6) During arguments, it was submitted that after making
some interim order by this Court, the matter was taken to the
Hon'ble Minister and the Hon'ble Minister had advised the Board to
see that matter is reconsidered. It is contended that accordingly,
the Hon'ble Minister had given direction, but again decision is
informed that the parties are to act as per the previous fixation of
wages.
7) The submissions made and the record show that the
present petitioner, the contractor felt it difficult to pay the wages at
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
4
revised rates as he had entered in to contract with Warehouse
Corporation well back in the year 2010 and the period of contract
was extended on the previous terms and conditions. Thus, he was
getting the rates as per the contract made with Warehouse
Corporation in the year 2010, but the rates of labour wages came
to be increased even when he had accepted the contract on the
basis of previous rates. This cannot be a ground to challenge the
revision in rates. If the contractor had not anticipated such revision
of rates, he needs to blame himself and he cannot blame the Board
for that. The circumstance that even Warehouse Corporation had
informed about the probable objection, cannot be considered in
view of the powers of the Board and the object behind creation of
the aforesaid Act.
8) Though in the past, interim order was made by this
Court and this Court had expressed that it was advisable to
constitute full-fledged Board for taking decision on such matters,
the decision is already taken by the Board. Due to this
circumstance, this Court has carefully gone through the scheme of
the aforesaid Act. The purpose of the Act is mentioned in preamble
and it shows that it is made to regulate the employment of
unprotected manual workers engaged in employments like present
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
5
one, to make better provisions for their terms and conditions of
employment and to provide for their welfare.... The provision of
section 6 of the Act shows that the State Government is expected
to establish the Board by issuing notification in the Official Gazette
for any area and each Board shall be a body corporate, having
perpetual succession and common seal etc. The provision shows
that the Board shall consist of members nominated from time to
time by the State Government representing the employers, the
unprotected workers and the State Government. The provision of
section 6 (5) shows that the Chairman of the Board shall be one of
the members appointed to represent the State Government,
nominated in this behalf by the State Government. Section 6 (8)
provides that the procedure for the meeting of the Board shall be
regulated by the Board itself. The provision of section 6-A, which
allows one member Board to function is as follows :-
" 6A. POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO
APPOINT BOARD CONSISTING OF ONE
PERSON.-
(1) Where by reason of employers or unprotected
workers in any scheduled employment refusing to
nominate persons for representing them on the
Board or for any reason whatsoever, it appears to the
State Government that it is unable to constitute a
Board for such scheduled employment in accordance
with the provisions of section 6, the State
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
6
Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, appoint a person who shall hold office until
a Board is duly constituted under section 6 for such
scheduled employment.
(2) The person so appointed shall be deemed
to constitute the Board for the time being, and shall
exercise all the powers and perform and discharge all
the duties and functions conferred and imposed upon
the Board by or under this Act. He shall continue in
office until the day immediately preceding the date of
the first meeting of such Board.
(3) The persons constituting the Board shall
receive such remuneration from the fund of the
Board, and the terms and other conditions of service
shall be such as the State Government may
determine."
9) The provision of section 24 (2) of the Act shows that
supersession of the Board is possible and after the supersession of
the Board and until it is reconstituted, the powers, duties and
functions of the Board shall be exercised and shall be performed by
the State Government through such officer of the State
Government who can be appointed by the State Government. The
provision of section 25 shows that contracting out is not
permissible and such agreement is to be treated as void.
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
7
10) The order made by the Board dated 3.8.2012 shows
that it was a Board consisting of one person as provided in section
6-A of the Act. The submissions made show that one member
Board was functioning since the year 2005. The order made by one
member Board shows that the board had published notice in
respect of proposed rates in newspaper 'Loksatta' and the proposed
rates were informed to Warehouse Corporation, Unions of Transport
and Dock Workers, Unions of Contractors, Unions of Labours and
even to individual contractors. The order shows that the objections
were to be submitted up to 13.7.2012. The rates were declared by
this order for the period 1.6.2012 to 31.5.2014. Thus, it cannot be
said that the rates were fixed with retrospective operation as
process was started in the year 2012 itself and the proposed rates
were advertised.
11) In view of the aforesaid contents of the order, it cannot
be said that the contractors or representatives of association of
contractors were not informed about the process of revision which
was going on. It appears that Writ Petition No. 980/2012 was filed
by another contractor, but no relief was granted by this Court and
by order dated 6.8.2012, this Court had advised the said contractor
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
8
to approach the State authorities. It appears that representation
was made to the Labour Commissioner by many such contractors
including the present petitioner and they had prayed for reducing
the hike and allowing the hike only to the extent of 10% to 12%. It
was submitted by them that the Associations of Labours were
ready to work at lower rate also and that circumstance ought to
have been considered at the time of fixation of rates. Thus, it was
submitted that the lower rates would not have affected the labour
force. This circumstance or the proposition or the ground by the
contractors could not have been considered in view of the aforesaid
object behind the Act. The purpose of the Act is to prevent
exploitation of the unprotected workers. It is clear that the
contractors were getting big amount in between and reasonable
portion of money which Warehouse Corporation was giving, was
not reaching to the labour.
12) If the present petitioner had objection to the aforesaid
rates, he could have stopped to work which he had taken under the
contract, but that was not done and he continued to make
representations. He had approached the Corporation for increasing
the rates given to him under the contract. But, it appears that it
was not accepted. The submission was made by the learned
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
9
counsel for Corporation that due to other circumstances like
increase of the distance of transportation, some hike was given by
the Corporation.
13) The record shows that the Hon'ble Minister had
arranged a meeting to consider the say of all concerned on
26.2.2013 and separate intimation was given to the present
petitioner. It appears that notification was issued on 6.2.2013 to
appoint representatives of principal employers, representatives of
unprotected workers and also the Chairman. The meeting of this
newly constituted Board was held on 26.2.2013. In the meeting,
the representatives of the contractors expressed that they were not
ready to accept the rates fixed by one member Board. There are
minutes of the meeting dated 16.4.2013. But, no subject was
placed for reconsideration of the rates fixed by one member Board.
Representation was made to Labour Commissioner and he made a
report to the State Government, the Principal Secretary, Labour
and Industry that one member Board has considered everything
and after considering increase in the prices of essential
commodities etc., the rates were fixed. It was also informed that
different rates at different places were fixed by different Boards,
but that cannot be a ground for grievance as the nature of work at
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
10
every place is different. This report was sent on 2.8.2013 and on
that basis, the Government communicated the previous order on
26.9.2013 and it declared that the rates fixed were proper and
there was no possibility of change of those rates.
14) The aforesaid record and circumstances show that only
after following proper procedure, one member Board constituted as
provided under section 6A of the Act had fixed the rates and the
representatives of concerned parties were given an opportunity to
have their say. The parties like contractors, like the present
petitioner are bound to oppose the hike in rates as the hike in the
rates will reduce their margin, profit. If the contractors like the
present petitioner had continued to work on the basis of previous
rates with Warehouse Corporation, that cannot be a ground for
challenging the rates fixed by the Board. That circumstances
cannot be considered against the labour force for whose protection
the Act is made. It appears that the petitioner has raised another
dispute with Warehouse Corporation with regard to increase of
distance of transportation due to the order made by the authority
from Aurangabad city that the transport vehicles are not allowed to
enter the city during the day time and due to that, they are
required to use the other root which is of longer distance. Such
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
11
contentions also cannot be considered in the matter like present
one. In the matter like present one, the Board is expected to
consider as to what can be fair rate. On the basis of possibility of
revision of rates, the contractor can quote rates in contract with
other parties like Warehouse Corporation, but he cannot challenge
the rate itself on such ground. Further, the contention that at other
places rates are different, cannot be a ground as at other places
the nature of work is different and the goods which are lifted and
carried out may be also different.
15) During arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner
drew the attention of this Court to one application made by a
representative of the labours to newly constituted Board. This
Court was really surprised to see that the said member has
supported the contentions of the contractors when the
representatives of the labours are expected to work for the interest
of labourers. This circumstance shows as to how the exploitation of
the labour force takes place. The Government needs to be cautious
and the labours also need to be careful in selecting their
representatives, who are to work as members of the Board. Due to
all these circumstances, this Court holds that it is not possible to
interfere in the decision taken by the single member Board which
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::
WP No. 9100/13
12
was properly constituted at the relevant time and which followed
the procedure which it was expected to follow. There is one more
circumstance in the present matter like the cheques given by the
present petitioner for making payment to the Board had bounced
and due to that, Warehouse Corporation was required to make
payment to the Board directly. The writ jurisdiction cannot be
exercised in favour of person like the present petitioner due to
aforesaid circumstances. In the result, the petition stands
dismissed. Civil Applications are disposed of.
[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:30:06 :::