JIVAN VIPIN HIWRALE AND OTHERSversusM/S AMBAJI SOLUTIONS THR ITS VALMIK RAGHUNATH SHELKE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:21976
                                                            Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                                            :: 1 ::




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                              WRIT PETITION NO.9099 OF 2021


            JivanVipin Hiwrale & ors.                       ….Petitioners
                     VERSUS
            M/s Ambaji solutions & ors.                     ….Respondents

                                             .......
            Mr. Joslyin Menezes, Advocate holding for
            Mr. P.S. Paranjape, Advocate for petitioners
            Mr. A.S. Sakhare, Advocate for R.No.1
                                             ....…

                                    CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                    DATE    : 28th APRIL, 2026

            PER COURT :



            1.          Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.


            2.          By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioners assail the

            order dated 4/2/2021, passed by the learned 13 th Civil Judge,

            Senior Division, Aurangabad below Exh.21 in Regular Civil Suit

            No.452/2020, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/

            original defendants No.3 to 5 for dismissing the plaint for want of
                                                 Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                                :: 2 ::


jurisdiction came to be rejected.


3.         Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the

respondent No.1 is the principal employer Company under Section

2(7) of the Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers

Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (for short the

Act). The respondent No.2 and 3 are the Chairman and Inspector

respectively of the Scheme framed under the Act and, therefore,

they have been added in their personal capacity. Learned counsel

for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are working on the

establishment of respondent No.1 as Mathadi, carrying out the work

of loading and unloading of goods and as per the Scheme

introduced for the Mathadi workers in Aurangabad, it is mandatory

for the Mathadi workers to register themselves with the Mathadi

Board constituted as per Section 6 of the Act.


4.         Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that,

the very object behind enacting of the Act and the Scheme is to

regulate the employment of unprotected manual workers from

exploitation at the hands of the employers and for regulating their

service conditions. He submits that, the respondent No.1 herein
                                                  Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                                 :: 3 ::


filed Regular Civil Suit No.452/2020 seeking declaration that the

report dated 29/9/2018 filed by the respondent No.3 as per the

provisions of the Act is illegal and not binding upon the respondent

No.1 and so also the letter dated 20/7/2020 be declared as illegal

and   further   sought    permanent        injunction   restraining     the

petitioners/ defendant Nos.3 to 5 from entering the premises of the

plaintiff/ respondent No.1 and in any manner creating obstruction.


5.          After receipt of the notice, the petitioners appeared and

filed an application raising preliminary objection as to the

jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad

to entertain the suit.    He submits that, as the Act is a special

enactment, the only remedy provided under the Act to be exhausted

and the provisions of Specific Relief Act are not applicable.           He

invited my attention to the preamble of the Act.             Section 6 –

constitution of the Board, Section 7 – powers and duties of the

Board and more particularly he invited my attention to Section 17-E

and also Section 27-A of the Act, by pointing out that, considering

the pleadings in the suit, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. He

submits that, though the petitioner had pointed out this to the Civil
                                                Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                                :: 4 ::


Court, but the Civil Court rejected the application. He relied upon

the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of

Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited & ors. (AIR 2009 SC 1118) and more particularly paragraph

No.25, which reads as under:


         “25. As has been rightly contended by learned counsel
         for the respondents, Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Act
         specifically provide for application of certain Act to
         Security Guards. In other words, these specific statutes
         have application. Other statutes are dealing with
         employer and employee relationship and the rights
         thereunder which are made applicable to Security
         Guards. To put it differently, only the statutes clearly
         indicated are applicable to Security Guards. Other
         statutes are clearly excluded.”


6.         Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that,

the application filed by the petitioners needs to be allowed by

setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court.


7.         Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1

submits that, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is legal and

proper by contending that, as there is no bar created under the Act,

therefore, considering the pleadings of the parties, the suit is

maintainable. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
                                            Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                              :: 5 ::




8.         Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties

it is necessary to refer the object and provisions of the Act. The

preamble of the Act provides an Act for regulating the employment

of unprotected manual workers employed in certain employments in

the State of Maharashtra to make provisions for their adequate

supply and proper and full utilization in such employments and for

matters connected therewith and, therefore, the Act was enacted in

the State of Maharashtra. Section 2(1) “Board” means, a Board

established under Section 6.      Sub-section (10) of Section 2

prescribes the Scheme means the scheme made under the Act. Sub-

section (11) defines the term “unprotected worker” means a manual

worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled

employment. Sub-section (12) deals with “worker”, means a person

who is engaged or to be engaged directly or through any agency,

whether for wages or not, to do manual work in any scheduled

employment and includes any person not employed by any

employer or a contractor, but working with the permission of, or

under agreement with the employer or contractor, but does not

include the members of an employer’s family. Sub-section (13) of
                                                    Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                                :: 6 ::


Section 2 provides ‘wages” means all remunerations expressed in

terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the

terms of contract of employment, express or implied were, fulfilled,

be payable to an unprotected worker in respect of work done in any

scheduled employment, but does not include (I) the value of any

house accommodation, supply of light, water, medical attendance,

or any other amenity or any service excluded from the computation

of wages by general or special order of the State Government; (ii)

any contribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or

provident fund or under any scheme of social insurance and the

interest which may have accrued thereon, (iii) any travelling

allowance or the value of any travelling concession, (iv) any sum

paid to the worker to defray special expenses entailed on him by the

nature of his employment; or (v) any gratuity payable on discharge.


9.         Section 3 reads as under :


        “3. Schemes for ensuring          regular   employment    of
        unprotected workers:

        (1)    For the purpose of ensuring an adequate supply and
        full and proper utilization of unprotected workers in
        scheduled employments, and generally for making better
        provision for the terms and conditions of employment of
        such workers the State Government mat be means of a
        scheme provide for the registration of employers and
                                            Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                          :: 7 ::


unprotected workers in any scheduled employment or
employments, and provide for the terms and conditions of
work of registered unprotected workers, and make provision
for the general welfare in such employments. (2) In
particular, a scheme may provide for all or any of the
following matters that is to say –

(a)    for the application of the scheme of such classes of
registered unprotected workers and employers, as may be
specified therein;

(b)    for defining the obligations of registered unprotected
workers and employers subject to the fulfillment of which
the scheme may apply to them;

(c)   for regulating the recruitment and entry into the
scheme of unprotected workers, and the registration of
unprotected workers and employers, including the
maintenance of registers, removal, either temporarily or
permanently, of names from the registers, and the
imposition of fees for registration;

(d)    for regulating the employment of registered
unprotected workers, and the terms and conditions of such
employment, including rates of wages, hours of work,
maternity benefit, overtime payment, leave with wages,
provision for gratuity and conditions as to weekly and other
holidays and pay in respect thereof; (d-i) for providing the
time within which registered employers should remit to the
Board the amount of wages payable to the registered
workers for the work done by such workers; for requiring
such employers who, in the opinion of the Board, make
default in remitting the amount of wages in time as
aforesaid, to deposit with the Board, an amount equal to the
monthly average of the wages to be remitted as aforesaid; if
at any time the amount of such deposit falls short of such
average, for requiring the employer to make good the
amount of such average, and for requiring such employers
who persistently make default in making such remittances
in time to pay also by way of penalty, a surcharge of such
amount not exceeding 10 per cent. of the amount to be
remitted as the Board may determine;

(e)    for securing that, in respect of period during which
employment or full employment is not available to
registered unprotected workers though they are available
                                              Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                           :: 8 ::


for work, such unprotected workers will, subject to the
conditions of the scheme, receive a minimum wage;

(f)   for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling
the employment of unprotected workers to whom the
scheme does not apply, and the employment of unprotected
workers by employers to whom the scheme does not apply;

(g)    for the welfare of registered unprotected workers
covered by the scheme in so far as satisfactory provision
therefor, does not exist, apart from the scheme;

(h)    for health and safety measures in places where the
registered unprotected workers are engaged, in so far as
satisfactory provision therefor, is required but does not exist,
apart from the scheme;

(i)    for the constitution of any fund or funds including
provident fund for the benefit of registered unprotected
workers, the vesting of such funds, the payment and
contributions to be made to such funds, (provision for
provident fund and rates of contribution being made after
taking into consideration the provisions of the Employees'
Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the scheme framed
thereunder with suitable modifications, where necessary, to
suit the conditions of work of such registered unprotected
workers) and all matters relating thereto;

(j)    for the manner in which, the day from which (either
prospective or retrospective) and the persons by whom, the
cost of operating the scheme is to be defrayed

(k)    for constituting the persons or authorities who are to
be responsible for the administration of the scheme, and for
the administration of funds constituted for the purposes
aforesaid;

(k-i) for specifying the powers and duties which the
persons or authorities referred to in clause (k) may exercise
or perform, for providing appeals and revision applications
against the decisions or orders of such persons and
authorities; and for deciding such appeals and applications
and for matters incidental thereto;

(l)  for such incidental and supplementary matters, as
may be necessary or expedient for giving effect to the
                                                     Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                                    :: 9 ::


          purposes of a scheme;

          (3)    The scheme may further provide that a contravention
          of any provision thereof shall be punished with
          imprisonment for such term as may be specified (but in no
          case exceeding three months in respect of a first
          contravention or six months in respect of any subsequent
          contravention) or with fine which may extend to such
          amount as may be specified (but in no case exceeding five
          hundred rupees in respect of the first contravention, or one
          thousand rupees in respect of any subsequent
          contravention) or with both imprisonment and fine and if
          the contravention is continued after conviction, with a
          further fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for
          each day on which the contravention is so continued.”



10.          Section 4 provides making variation and revocation of

Scheme. Section 5 deals with the disputes regarding application of

scheme.


11.          As regards Section 6 is concerned, it deals with the

constitution of Board.       Section 6A provides the powers of State

Government to appoint Board consisting of one person. Section 7

provides powers and duties of the Board. Section 13 deals with

determination of moneys due from employer and workers. Section

17 provides offence to be tried by Labour Court. It needs to be

considered that, Section 17-E, which provides decision of Labour

Court and Industrial Court not to be questioned in any Civil or

Criminal Court. Section 17(C) provides appeal from Labour Court
                                                Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                                :: 10 ::


to Industrial Court.   Section 27-A provides protection of action

taken under this Act, which provides, no suit, prosecution or other

legal proceedings shall lie against the State Government or the

Board or the Chairman, Secretary or any member of the Board or

Advisory Committee, or any Inspector or any other officers of the

Board for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be

done in pursuance of this Act, or any scheme or any rule or order

made thereunder.


12.         After going through the Scheme of the Act and referring

some provisions, it reveals that, as far as Section 17 is concerned, it

reveals that, no decision, conviction, acquittal, sentence or order

passed by or of Labour Court shall be called in question in any Civil

or Criminal Court; and Sub-section (2) of Section 17-E provides that

no decision given or order passed by the Industrial Court shall be

called in question in any Civil or Criminal Court. Therefore, as far

as going by Section 17-E, it is clear that, any decision or order

passed by the Labour and Industrial Court cannot be questioned by

filing a proceeding before Civil or Criminal Court. But here in this

case, considering the facts involved, no any decision of Labour
                                                Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                                :: 11 ::


Court or Industrial Court was challenged before the Civil Court by

the respondent No.1.


13.         I have also gone through the copy of the plaint, wherein

the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 challenged the report dated

29/9/2018 as well as the letter dated 28/7/2020 to be declared as

illegal.


14.         As regards Section 27-A is concerned, it provides no suit,

prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the State

Government or Board or Chairman, Secretary or any member of the

Board or Advisory Committee or any Inspector of the Board, which

in good faith done or intended to be done pursuant to this Court.

Therefore, Section 27 deals with any action taken by the above

referred authority constituted under this Act, taken in good faith,

then the proceedings are not maintainable before the Civil Court to

institute the suit.   Here in this case, it is not the case of the

respondent No.1 as well as the petitioners that any action taken by

these authorities in good faith was challenged by filing the Civil Suit

and, therefore, even Section 27 cannot be considered to accept the

contention of the petitioner that the Civil Suit is maintainable. As
                                              Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                              :: 12 ::


regards the judgment on which the learned counsel for the

petitioner relied, the said judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex

Court is under the Security Guard Board constituted by the

Maharashtra Security Guards (Regulation and Employment and

Welfare) Act, 1981 arose. Considering the provisions under the said

Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, the issue before the Hon’ble

Apex Court was, regarding once the Security Guard Board

constituted under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards

(Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1991 allots Guards to

the principal employer, it looses the power to recall, re-allot or

transfer such guard as the guard so allotted becomes employee of

the principal employer. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while recording

findings in paragraph Nos.14 and 25, held that, once a specific

statute has been enacted, other statutes dealing with the employer-

employee relations and the rights thereunder are to be considered

under the special enactment only.        But considering the issue

involved in the present petition, with due respect, the judgment on

which the petitioners are relying, is not applicable to the present

case.
                                                  Writ Petition No.9099/2021
                                  :: 13 ::


15.            Therefore, considering the above, I find that, the learned

Trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting the

application and, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ

Petition.


16.            Hence, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. No order

as to costs.



                                (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)




fmp/-