JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. Heard Mr. Aney, learned Senior Counsel, for Petitioner, Mr. Vanarse, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.
2. On 23rd July 1973 Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulations of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (fort short “Mathadi Act of 1969) was made applicable in the areas of Pune Municipal Corporation for the scheduled employment stated therein with effect from that day itself. The Notification dated 23rd July 1973 reads thus:
“INDUSTRIES AND LABOUR DEPARTMENT
Sachivalaya, bombay-32, 23rd July 1973
MAHARASHTRA MATHADI, HAMAL AND OTHER WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE ACT, 1969.
No. UWA-1473/180589/Lab-IV – In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) act, 1969 (Mah. XXX of 1969), the Government of Maharashtra hereby appoints the 23rd day of July 1978, to be the day on which all the provisions of the said Act shall come into force in the areas of the Poona Municipal Corporation for the following Scheduled employments, namely:-
(1) Employment in grocery markets or shops, in connection with loading, unloading, stacking carrying, weighing, measuring, filling, stitching, sorting, cleaning or such other work including work preparatory or incidental to such operations;
(2) Employment in markets or subsidiary markets established under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, in connection with loading, unloading, stacking, carrying, weighing, measuring filling, stitching, sorting, cleaning, or such other work including work preparatory or incidental to such operations.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra,
S.A. VAIDYA,
Under Secretary to Government.”
3. There is no challenge to the said Notification. Thus, there is no challenge about the applicability of Mathadi Act of 1969 to the areas of Pune Municipal Corporation in respect of employment in markets or subsidiary markets established under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 in connection with loading, unloading, stacking, carrying, weighing, measuring filling, stitching, sorting, cleaning or such other work including work preparatory or incidental to such operations. According to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as is reflected from their reply affidavit that after the Mathadi Act of 1969 was made applicable, the scheme notified on 30th March 1974 was also made applicable, inter alia, to mathadi/weigham who, according to the said Respondents, have to perform diverse manual operations like receiving the heavy loads from the hamals which is placed in tagdi; billing contents of the tagdi when the load is placed and to place heavy weights running into 100 kgs. in the other tagdi while weighing; on completion of weighing process to record weight in the presence of supervision of trader and get his signature in approval. The Petitioner which is a registered association looking after the interest and welfare of the merchants dealing in grocery and kirana items within the Municipal limits of Pune Municipal Corporation and majority of its members are licence holders under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation ) Act, 1963, on the other hand seeks to contend that the said scheme notified on 30th March 1974 is not applicable to weighman. Section 5 of the Mathadi Act of 1969 reads thus:
“5. It any question arises whether any scheme applies to any class of unprotected workers of employers, the matter shall be referred to the State Government and the decision of the State Government on the question, which shall be taken after consulting the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 14, shall be final.”
4. It would be thus seen that if a dispute arises whether any scheme applies to any class of unprotected workers or employers, the State Government is the final authority to decide the said question on reference being made and the said decision is to be taken by the State Government after consulting the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 14. It does appear that the Petitioner got the matter referred to the State Government under Section 5 regarding the applicability of the scheme dated 30th March 1974 and on that reference the decision has been given by the State Government on 28th April 1994 which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. Inter alia in the Writ Petition, the Petitoner has raised the grievance that while deciding the reference the first Respondent has not assigned any reasons and that the order was passed without consulting the Advisroy Committee constituted under Section 14 of the Act. We find from the impugned order that the first Respondent had detailed discussions with the Advisroy Committee before deciding the question about applicability of the scheme dated 30th March 1974. However, we may note that in the reply affidavit filed by the first Respondent the composition of Advisory Committee has not been stated and because of that we find it difficult to comment as to whether the said Advisory Committee was constituted as per Section 14 of the Mathadi Act of 1969. Be that as it may, the infirmity which we have noticed in the impugned order dated 28th April 1994 is that it assigns no reasons for the decision taken by the first Respondent in exercise of its power under Section 5. Since the exercise of power by the State Government for deciding the dispute regarding application of scheme is adjudicatory in nature, as is clear from the bare provision of Section 5, the decision so taken by the State Government has to be supported by reasons, more so because such decision by the State Government deciding dispute regarding application of the scheme is final. Obviously before any decision is taken by the State Government, the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 14 has to be consulted mandatorily as provided under Section 5 itself. Since there are no reasons assigned by the first Respondent in support of the order dated 28th April 1994, we do not deem it necessary to deal with the diverse aspects highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner challenging the impugned order as the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first Respondent In accordance with law.
5. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 28th April 1994 passed by the first Respondent and the matter is restored to the file of the first Respondent for reconsideration of the dispute regarding applicability of the scheme dated 30th March 1974 to the weighmen working in the markets or subsidiary markets established under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 in the areas of Pune Municipal Corporation and such other work including work preparatory or ancillary to such operations.
6. The Petitioner through its authorised person is directed to appear before the first Respondent on 24th March 2003. We expect the first Respondent to take decision thereon afresh in accordance with law after due consultation with the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 14 expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of appearance of the Petitioner.
7. Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No. costs.
8. All contentions of the Petitioner about applicability of the scheme dated 30th March 1974 are kept open to be agitated before first Respondent.
9. No costs.
Certified copy expedited.