'Board Under Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal & Other Manual Workers Act Cannot Review Its Orders': High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that a board under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers Act, 1969, has no statutory power to review or reopen its earlier orders under Section 13 of the Act. The Court observed that the power of review is not inherent and can only be exercised when expressly conferred by statute or by necessary implication.A Division Bench comprising Justice...
The Bombay High Court has held that a board under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers Act, 1969, has no statutory power to review or reopen its earlier orders under Section 13 of the Act. The Court observed that the power of review is not inherent and can only be exercised when expressly conferred by statute or by necessary implication.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas was hearing a writ petition filed by the Valsad District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., challenging the Board's resolution dated 20 August 2014 and consequential order dated 12 July 2016, by which the Board directed a de novo enquiry under Section 13 and held the petitioner liable to pay wages of ₹14,53,052 with levy and interest to twelve Mathadi workers.
The petitioner, a registered employer under the Act, argued that the Board had already rejected similar proceedings, and the proceedings initiated under Section 13 were not at all permissible in the eyes of the law.
The Court noted that after an earlier writ petition filed by the workers was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Industrial Court, they neither availed of that remedy nor challenged the 2012 rejection order under Section 13. A second writ petition was also disposed of in 2014, upholding the Board's 2012 decision. Despite this, the Board passed a resolution in 2014 to hold a fresh enquiry and subsequently directed the petitioner to pay arrears of wages and levies.
The Court strongly criticised this conduct, observing that by passing the 2016 order, the Board had virtually exercised the power of review and rewritten Section 13 of the Act, which nowhere confers such authority. The Bench remarked that once the challenge to communication dated 24-09-2018 failed, the Board ought to have appreciated that the communication dated 24-09-2018 had become final. The Court also noted that the respondent workers did not give any explanation as to why they did not take recourse to the Industrial Law for redressal of their grievance.
“… Section 13 of the Act of 1969 nowhere confers power upon the Board to review its own order. The Board, by passing a resolution and the order impugned dated 12 July 2016, has ignored provisions of law, particularly, the Act of 1969,” the Court observed.
The Court held that the power of review is a creature of statute and not an inherent power. It observed:
“… the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. If the powers to exercise review are not based upon a statutory provision, more particularly, the Act of 1969, the respondent Board was not at all justified in passing the order impugned.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition.
Case Title: Valsad District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Nagpur & Wardha District Mathadi and Unprotected Labour Board & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 5486 of 2016]