Fedex Express Transportation And Supply Chain Services India Pvt Ltd v. Goods Transport Labour Boad Mumbai And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1841 OF 2025 Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Grocery Markets And Shops Board & Ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 864 OF 2025 Daivya Enterprises LLP & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
Grocery Market And Shops Board For Greater Mumbai & Ors.
...Respondents
by SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Date:
2025.04.25 11:39:38 +0530 SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1552 OF 2025 Fedex Express Transportation And Supply Chain Services India Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Goods Transport Labour Board Mumbai & Ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8558 OF 2024 Akhil Bhartiya Mathadi, Suraksharakshak, Shramajeevi And General Kamgar Union
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5539 OF 2023 Subhash S. Gaikwad & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6268 OF 2024 The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Polyester Plant)
...Petitioner
Versus
The Grocery Markets And Shops Board For Greater Mumbai & Ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 16906 OF 2024 Akhil Bhartiya Mathadi Transport And General Kamgar Union
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 17653 OF 2024 Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Polyester Division)
...Petitioner
Versus
Grocery Market And Shops Board For Greater Mumbai & Ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 18102 OF 2024 Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Grocery Market And Shops Board For Greater Mumbai & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. Suresh Pakale, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Nilesh Desai, Advocate for the Petitioners in WP/5539/2023, WP/864/2025, WP/8558/2024, WP/16906/2024 & WP1841/2025.
Ms. Divya Wadekar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6 in WP/8558/2024.
Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi a/w Ms. Divya Wadekar, Advocate for Respondent No.5 in WP/5539/2023 & for the Petitioners in WP/1841/2025, WP/1552/2025, WP/6268/2024, WP/17653/2024 & WP/18102/2024.
Mr. Rahul D. Oak, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP/8558/2024 & for Respondent No.5 in WP/864/2025.
Mr. B.V. Samant, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. K.S. Thorat, 'B' Panel Counsel, Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent/State.
Mr. Laxman Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 6 in WP/1841/2025.
Mr. Prathamesh Bhanuwanshe i/by Mr. Sanjay Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in WP/17653/2024, Respondent No.2 in WP/6268/2024 and Respondent No.4 in WP/16906/2024. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd APRIL, 2025 P.C. :- 1.
This is a motion for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 17th April, 2025.
2.
The learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pakale submits that in Paragraph No.10, a clarification is required to indicate that the representatives of the Board should be such who have a Mathadi background or should have worked in the Mathadi employment at
some point in time. He further submits that the last sentence in Paragraph No.10 of the said order creates an embargo meaning that those who are presently working in the Mathadi activities, alone would have the right to represent the Mathadi workers. He submits that there could be a possibility that a former Mathadi worker may not today be a Mathadi worker, but may be a Union representative. 3.
The learned Advocate, Mr. Jalisatgi representing some of the Petitioners, submits that Paragraph No.10 may be modified only to mean that a representative who is nominated, should have been a registered Mathadi worker at some point in time and he or his Union should be associated with the Mathadi workers. 4.
We find that Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, could be of assistance to the State Government while considering which Union representative can claim to be connected with the Mathadi Industry.
5.
In view of the above, Paragraph No.10 of the order dated 17th April, 2025, shall be replaced with the following paragraph :-
"We trust the State Government will not consider outsiders, 'De-hors' the Statutory guideline/Rules, while scrutinising nominations to be made by the Unions/workers/unprotected workers/employers, meant for the purpose of advancing the intent/object and the provisions of the 1969 Act and the Scheme thereunder. The representatives who may be nominated, should be persons who are/were actually working as Mathadi workers at some point in time, are/were registered as Mathadi workers or are representing such Unions, which are connected with the Mathadi Industry, in view of Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926."
6.
The corrected order be uploaded.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)