May 14, 2025
Case Brief: Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd vs Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Bd. & Anr
| CASE NAME | “Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd vs Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Bd. & Anr” |
| CITATION | (2010) 3 SCC 514 |
| COURT | Supreme Court |
| BENCH | “Justices G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly” |
| PETITIONER | “Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd” |
| RESPONDENTS | “Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Bd. & Anr” |
| DECIDED ON | December 17, 2009 |
INTRODUCTION
“The case of “Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd vs Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Bd. & Anr”, December 17, 2009, is a case of appeals against two concurrent judgments of the “Bombay High Court”. The nub of the controversy is the interpretation of the expressions “unprotected worker” and “worker” employed in the “Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969” (hereinafter the “Mathadi Act”). The key problem is with regards to whether the definition of the terms is to be restricted to casual workers employed casually or expanded and include all manual workers without any consideration to their work status. The case is significant in determining how extensive coverage is afforded to manual laborers in Maharashtra under the “Mathadi Act”.
FACTS
“Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd.” (the Appellant) carried on the business of producing steel. The “Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board” (the Respondent No. 1) was constituted under the “Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969” (the “Mathadi Act”). The “Mathadi Act” provides for regulation of employment of unprotected manual workers in some scheduled employments, provides for sufficient supply of such workers, and provides for their welfare. The nub of the matter was whether the laborers working for “Bhuwalka Steel” in the work of loading, unloading, piling, and conveying iron and steel within the premises of a factory came within the purview of “unprotected worker” under “Section 2(11)” of the “Mathadi Act” and therefore. The Appellant argued that its employees were permanent employees with definite wages every month and other allowances and thus they were not “unprotected workers” who are normally casually hired and devoid of security of regular employment and benefits.
The Appellant had depended upon a former Division Bench ruling of the “Bombay High Court” in “Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2000 II CLR 279)”, wherein “unprotected worker” under the “Mathadi Act” had been held to include mostly casually employed labourers. The Board of Respondents was opposed, but the definition “unprotected worker” under “Section 2(11)” was wide enough to encompass all manual laborers engaged in scheduled employments, whether regular or casual laborers. The Board’s argument was that the character of work (manual handling of steel and iron) placed the workers within the scope of the “Act”. The matter came up for consideration initially before a Single Judge of the “Bombay High Court”, who, disagreeing with the “Century Textiles” ruling, referred the case to a Full Bench. The “Bombay High Court Full Bench” then ruled against the Appellant, stating that the construction in “Century Textiles” was erroneous and that the “Mathadi Act” was applicable to all manual workers in scheduled employments who were employed either casually or regularly. “Bhuwalka Steel” then appealed to the “Supreme Court” against this Full Bench ruling of the “Bombay High Court”. A number of other such appeals were also heard together.
ISSUE RAISED
- The basic issue before the “Supreme Court” was the meaning of the term “unprotected worker” as contemplated in “Section 2(11)” of the “Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969”. I.e. – Whether the use of the term “unprotected worker” in “Section 2(11)” of the “Mathadi Act” will be confined only to casually employed workers and nothing more, as the Division Bench in “Century Textiles” had believed, or whether it would cover all manual workers who are employed in scheduled employments without regard to whether they are regularly or casually employed.
- Whether the labourers hired by “Bhuwalka Steel” to manually handle iron and steel in the factory complex can be classified as “unprotected workers” under the “Mathadi Act”, holding the Appellant responsible to the laws and contributions of the “Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board”.
- The appropriateness and accuracy of the “Bombay High Court’s Full Bench” decision interpreting “Section 2(11)” of the “Mathadi Act” in contrast to the approach taken by the Division Bench in “Century Textiles”.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The Appellant leaned extensively on the “Century Textiles” judgment and contended that the “Mathadi Act” sought to safeguard casual manual laborers who were not offered regular employment security and privileges.
“Section 2(11)” of the “Mathadi Act” was argued to be read in relation to “Section 2(12)” (definition of “worker”) and the other provisions of the “Act” to justify interpreting that “Section 2(11)” specifically referred to casual labourers.
The Appellant had contended that it was a regular worker, enjoying the benefits of stable wage, Provident Fund, and other labor protection under other labor legislations and hence could not be placed under the jurisdiction of “unprotected workers” visualized by the “Mathadi Act”.
The Appellant also referred to the doctrine of “stare decisis” on the basis that the uniform interpretation of the “Mathadi Act” by the “Bombay High Court” for a long time (such as in “Century Textiles”) must be adhered to.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The Respondent Board maintained that the specific and definite terms of “Section 2(11)” of the “Mathadi Act” were such that they would imply “unprotected worker” as “a manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment.” No such stated exclusion was afforded to regular manual workers.
It was argued that the object and purpose of the “Mathadi Act” was to take care of all the manual workers who were engaged in the scheduled employments, either in regular or irregular employment, their well-being and improved conditions.
The Respondent contended that the character of work done by “Bhuwalka Steel’s” workers (manual handling of iron and steel) squarely fell within the scheduled employment of “iron and steel markets or shops,” and hence they were “unprotected workers” under the “Act.”
The Respondent contended that the interpretation in “Century Textiles” was incorrect because it introduced a condition (casual engagement) which was not necessarily included in the statutory definition.
The Respondent had also depended on the doctrine of “contemporanea expositio”, contending that the authorities themselves had interpreted and understood the “law” to have operated on each manual worker in scheduled employments.
JUDGEMENT
The “Supreme Court” performed a close interpretation of “Section 2(11)” of the “Mathadi Act”. The Court underscored the rule of plain meaning approach to construction of statutes, with the mandate that external aids have to be deployed only where language is uncertain or ambiguous. The Court held the definition of the “unprotected worker” under the “Section 2(11)” to be unambiguous and clear and embraces every manual worker involved or to be involved in any scheduled employment.
The Court discarded the contention that “Section 2(11)” must be construed narrowly on the objects and reasons or the preamble of the “Act”. It held that where the words of the statute are unambiguous, such external aids cannot be employed to restrict its meaning.
The “Supreme Court” also compared the “Century Textiles” decision, holding that it was incorrect to bring into the definition of “unprotected worker” the factor of “casual engagement” where the legislature had made it clear that there should be no qualification of the kind.
Regarding the rule of “stare decisis”, the “Supreme Court” held that such a rule could not be used to determine an interpretation against plain words of the statute.
The Court also examined the rule of “contemporanea expositio” but held that this was not the rule in the present case, as the meaning of law explained by the authorities, if other than the legislative provision, could not supersede the clear legislative intention. Specifically, the “Supreme Court” clarified and differentiated the “Century Textiles” case.
The “Supreme Court”, concurring with the Full Bench of the “Bombay High Court”, held that the expression “unprotected worker” in “Section 2(11)” of the “Mathadi Act” has a broad meaning and encompasses all manual workers employed in any scheduled employment, whether permanent or temporary or casual workers. The Court held that the legislative purpose in enacting the “Mathadi Act” was to extend protection and welfare to all manual workers who were employed in the aforementioned employments, as they were vulnerable due to the physical nature of work and susceptibility to exploitation. The “Act” sought to regulate their terms of employment, determine their just wages, and their welfare by setting up Boards. It was the view of the Court that such labor work by “Bhuwalka Steel’s” employees (loading, unloading, piling, and carrying iron and steel) was directly within the scheduled employment of “iron and steel markets or shops.” Accordingly, these individuals, being manual laborers in a scheduled employment, were “unprotected worker” under “Section 2(11)” of the “Mathadi Act”. The reason that these workers were permanent workers with some benefits did not make them exempt from the jurisdiction of the “Mathadi Act”. The “Act” was meant to add a further layer of protection and regulation to all manual workers in the scheduled employments, even though partially protected by other labour laws.
CONCLUSION
The appeals of “Bhuwalka Steel” and related industries were dismissed by the “Supreme Court”. The Court reiterated the judgment of the Full Bench of the “Bombay High Court” and held that all manual labourers working in scheduled employments, whether regular or casual, fall within the definition of “unprotected worker” under Section 2(11) of the “Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969”. The Court ruled that the laborers employed by “Bhuwalka Steel” for lifting steel and iron manually inside the factory yards were indeed “unprotected workers” as per the provisions of the “Mathadi Act” and therefore fell under the ambit of the provisions and cesses of the “Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board”.
The ruling explained the wide coverage of the “Mathadi Act” in covering manual workers in scheduled employments with focus on the nature of the work rather than the employment as the determining factor in applicability. This ruling had a great impact on industries employing manual workers in the scheduled employments in “Maharashtra”, holding them liable to comply with the provisions of the “Mathadi Act” and the rules framed thereunder.
