# VIZAGAPATAM DOCK LABOUR BOARD v. STEVEDORES ASSOCIATION, VISHAKHAPATNAM & ORS

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 303
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, C. A. Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vizagapatam-dock-labour-board-v-stevedores-association-vishakhapatnam-ors-4795
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Dock WorkRrs Regulation of Emp:oymerll Act, 1948-Vizakhapatnam
Dock Workers (Reg11/atio11 of Employment) Scheme, 1959-Dock Labour
Board if employ.er-Board i/1 carries on ''industry"-lndtL'ifrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
The claim for bonus of the Dock Board
Workers
employed at
Vizakhapatnam was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.
The parties to
the reference included the Vizagapatnam Dock Labour Board (the appellant), the Stevedores Association,
and two
Unions
representing
the
workers.
The Industrial Tribunal after referring to the nature of the
duties performed by the Board as well as the Stevedores Association and
its members and their relationships with the Dock Labour Board
held
that it was the Board that was the employer of the dock workers and
that the Board was liable for meeting the claim tor bonus.
The Board
in appeal to this Court, contended, that (i) it was not liable for the
payment of bonus when the claim of the workers was against the Stevedores
Assuciation and its members; and (ii) having regard to the provisions of
the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act (9 of 1948), and
the Vizagapatnam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme,
1959 and the functions dischar~et..1 hy the Board there was no
employeremplo~e relationship bet\\'een the Board and the workmen, and -as such
the Board could he made liable for the claim.
Accepting the contentions,
this Court,
HELD : {i) Having regard to the nature of the claim and the basis
on which the tribunal itself proceeded,
the claim for honus was made.
by the unions specifically against the Stevedores Association and its members and, as such, the tribunal was not justified in making the Board
liable.
(ii) The Board cannot he considered to be the employer of the Dock
Labour Workmen. From the provisior< of Dock Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Act and the Vizagapatnam Dock Workors (Regulation of
Employment) Scheme, it is evident that the Board is a statutory body
charged with the duty of administering the. scheme, the object of which
is to ensure that greater regularity of emnloymcnt for dock workers nre
available for the efficient performance of dock work.
The Board is an
autonomous body, competent to llctermine
and
pre~cribe the
wages,
allowances and other conditions of service of the dock workers. The purport of the Scheme is that the entire bodv of workers should be under the
Control and supervision of the Board. The registered employers are allocated monthly workers by the Administrativt. Body and the Administrative
Body supp1ies whenever necessary, the lahour force to the
Stevedores
from the Reserve Poo1.
The workmen who are allotted to the registered
employers are to. do the work under the control and supervision of the
registered employers and to act under their directions. The registered
employers pay the wages due to the worke•s to the Administrative Body
and the latter. in turn, a• agent of the registered employers,
pay them
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
over to the concerned \\'Orkmen.
The
re~istered employer· to
whom
A
the lahour force is allotted hv the Board is the employer whose work
to them. The functions of the Board such as recruitment and registration
of -the dock lahour for1.e, fixation of wages and dearness allowance, payn1cnt of \\·orkn1en's compensation, taking of discipttnary action and pro ..
hibition against employment of workers who
\Vere not registered
with
th~ Bonn.I. do not establish a relationship of employer and employee
hctwcen the Board and the dock labour. Further, the Board functioning
B
un<ler the Act :1nd the Scheme cannot be said to carry on any industry
so as to :1ttract the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
As a
clain1 for any type of bonus can. t'le met only from the actual employer
in respect of nnv in<lustrv and as the Board is neither the employer nor
carries on any industry the Tribunal \\'3S wrong in directing the Board
to pay Bonus for the vears in question. (316 B-E: G-H; 320 C]
Gy111kha11a C/11h U

## Text

_Characters 0–39,998 of 44,425. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
VIZAGAPATAM DOCK LABOUR BOARD
v.
STEVEDORES ASSOCIATION, VISHAKHAPATNAM & ORS.
September I 0, 1969
[J. M. SHELAT AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Dock WorkRrs Regulation of Emp:oymerll Act, 1948-Vizakhapatnam
Dock Workers (Reg11/atio11 of Employment) Scheme, 1959-Dock Labour
Board if employ.er-Board i/1 carries on ''industry"-lndtL'ifrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
The claim for bonus of the Dock Board
Workers
employed at
Vizakhapatnam was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.
The parties to
the reference included the Vizagapatnam Dock Labour Board (the appellant), the Stevedores Association,
and two
Unions
representing
the
workers.
The Industrial Tribunal after referring to the nature of the
duties performed by the Board as well as the Stevedores Association and
its members and their relationships with the Dock Labour Board
held
that it was the Board that was the employer of the dock workers and
that the Board was liable for meeting the claim tor bonus.
The Board
in appeal to this Court, contended, that (i) it was not liable for the
payment of bonus when the claim of the workers was against the Stevedores
Assuciation and its members; and (ii) having regard to the provisions of
the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act (9 of 1948), and
the Vizagapatnam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme,
1959 and the functions dischar~et..1 hy the Board there was no
employeremplo~e relationship bet\\'een the Board and the workmen, and -as such
the Board could he made liable for the claim.
Accepting the contentions,
this Court,
HELD : {i) Having regard to the nature of the claim and the basis
on which the tribunal itself proceeded,
the claim for honus was made.
by the unions specifically against the Stevedores Association and its members and, as such, the tribunal was not justified in making the Board
liable.
(ii) The Board cannot he considered to be the employer of the Dock
Labour Workmen. From the provisior< of Dock Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Act and the Vizagapatnam Dock Workors (Regulation of
Employment) Scheme, it is evident that the Board is a statutory body
charged with the duty of administering the. scheme, the object of which
is to ensure that greater regularity of emnloymcnt for dock workers nre
available for the efficient performance of dock work.
The Board is an
autonomous body, competent to llctermine
and
pre~cribe the
wages,
allowances and other conditions of service of the dock workers. The purport of the Scheme is that the entire bodv of workers should be under the
Control and supervision of the Board. The registered employers are allocated monthly workers by the Administrativt. Body and the Administrative
Body supp1ies whenever necessary, the lahour force to the
Stevedores
from the Reserve Poo1.
The workmen who are allotted to the registered
employers are to. do the work under the control and supervision of the
registered employers and to act under their directions. The registered
employers pay the wages due to the worke•s to the Administrative Body
and the latter. in turn, a• agent of the registered employers,
pay them
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
over to the concerned \\'Orkmen.
The
re~istered employer· to
whom
A
the lahour force is allotted hv the Board is the employer whose work
to them. The functions of the Board such as recruitment and registration
of -the dock lahour for1.e, fixation of wages and dearness allowance, payn1cnt of \\·orkn1en's compensation, taking of discipttnary action and pro ..
hibition against employment of workers who
\Vere not registered
with
th~ Bonn.I. do not establish a relationship of employer and employee
hctwcen the Board and the dock labour. Further, the Board functioning
B
un<ler the Act :1nd the Scheme cannot be said to carry on any industry
so as to :1ttract the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
As a
clain1 for any type of bonus can. t'le met only from the actual employer
in respect of nnv in<lustrv and as the Board is neither the employer nor
carries on any industry the Tribunal \\'3S wrong in directing the Board
to pay Bonus for the vears in question. (316 B-E: G-H; 320 C]
Gy111kha11a C/11h Union v.
Al1111t1_~e11H'11t, [1968) l S.C.R. 742. 752.
C
applied.
A. C. Rny & Co. Lui. v. '/'a.1'/im, 71 C.W.N. 531, referred to.
Kir/osk£•r Oil Engines v. Han111a11t La:rinan Biht1u·ej, [1963) 3 S.C.R.
5l4, diMinguishcd.
C. V. A. Hwlrm., & Son v. Iosep/I Smion, [1967] 1 L.L.J. 509 dis·
D
npprovct.!.
C1v1L 'APPELLATE JuR1so1cnoN: Civil Appeal No. 2113 of
1968.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated May 24. 1968
of the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh in T.D. No. 10 of 1967.
E
Nire11 De, A//omer·Ge11era/, S. K. D/w/akia. R. H. Dliehar
and S. P. Nayar. for the appellant.
K. Sri11il'a.l't1m11rthy and Nmmit ·Lal, for respondents Nos. 1 to
12.
B. P. Mal1es/11mri, for respondent No. 13.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J.
This appeal. by special leave. by the Vizagapatam Dock Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as the
Board), is directed against the award, dated May ~4. 1968 of the
Inoustrial Tribunal. Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad in I.D. No. JO
of 1967 holding that the appellant sliould pay the Dock workers
employed at Vizagapatam Port bonus for the accounting years
1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67.
The Central Government. by its order dated April 13. 1967
referred for adjudication. to the said Tribunal. the question whe·
, ther the demand for payment of bonus to Dock Labour Board
Workers employed at .Yisakhapntnam Port for the ncconting years
F
G
H
B
c
u
E
G
II
DOCK LAUOUR BOARD v. STEVEDORES ASSCN. (Vaidia/ingam, J.)305
1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-6 7 was justified and, if so, at what
rate should such bonus be paid.
The parties to the Reference
included the Board, the Visakhapatnam Stevedores Association,
certain individual Stevedores and two Unions representing workers.
The two Unions were the Port Khalasis
Union and the Dock
Workers Union.
Both the Unions filed statements of claim on behalf of their
workmen.
They referred to the demands
made by them for
payment of bonus and the rejection thereof by the Board and the
Stevedores Association.
They referred to certain agreements
having been reached in respect of bonus between the workmen
and the respective Stevedores Associations, in Calcutta, Cochin:
Madras and Bombay.
They claimed that the work done by the
workmen at Visakhapatnam Port was exactly similar to the type
of work done by the Stevedores workmen at Bombay, Calcutta,
Cochin and Madras and that therefore their claim for bonus was
justified. They further referred to the fact that the Board and the
Stevedores Association were all governed by the Dock Workers
(Regulation of Employment) Act 1948 (Act IX of J 948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Yizagapatam Dock Workers
(Regulation of Employment) Scheme, J 959 (hereinaf:er referred
to as the Scheme), framed thereunder.
The said Scheme is similar
to the Scheme obtaining in the areas where a settlement had been
entered into regarding bonus and the relationship between
the
Stevedores and the Dock Labour Board was also the same in all
ports.
The Unions claimed bonus at 14 paise per ton for 196465, 15 paise per ton for 1965-66 and 16 paise per ton for 1966-67.
The Visakhapatnam Stevedores Association and its member
Stevedores filed statements contesting the claim of the workmen.
After referring to some of the provisions of the Act and the
Scheme, the Association urged that the Dock Workers were the
workmen 0f the Board as all the ingredients of master and servant
existed as between the Board and the Dock Workers.
The Association further urged that the Dock Labour workers were not :he
employees of the Stevedores and, as such no claim for bonus could
be made as against the Stevedores Association or its mer.1bers.
The Association further pleaded that it was an unnecessary party
to the Reference and the workmen had no claim as against it !n
view of the fact that the Association or its members were not :·he
employers of the dock workers.
They also contested the claim
of the workmen on merits.
The Board, represented by its Chairman, filed a written statement contesting the claim of !he Stevedores that they were not the
employers of the dock workers.
The Board claimed that i~ ·.vas
a statutory body constituted under the Act and governed by the
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
statutory Scheme in the discharge of its statutory functions.
According to it none of the functions discharged by it under the
Act or the Scheme could be characterised as 'carrying on of an
industry' so as to attract the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
On the other hand, the Board urged that it was the Stevedores and their Association that carried on the stevedoring industry
during the years for which a claim for bonus was made by the
workmen and therefore, if at all, the liability for payment of bonus
should be that of the Stevedores and their Association.
It further
urged that the claim, having been made by the workmen against
the Stevedores, the latter should not be allowed to convert the said
claim into one against the Board. The Board also further pleaded
that it was not a necessary or proper-party to the dispute.
It filed
an additional written statement pointing out that the Visakhapatm1m Stevedores Association had been appointed by the Central
Government as the Administrative Body for the purpose of carrying on the day-to-day administration of the Scheme and that the
said Administrative Body' is deemed to act as an ligent for the
employers, as would be evident from the Scheme.
After referring
to the functions of the Administrative Body under the Scheme, the
Board claimed that it had no further part to play in the proceedings before the Tribunal.
The Industrial Tribunal, after referring lo the nature of the
duties performed by the Board as well as the Setvedores Association and its members and their relationship with the Dock Labour
Boards, held that it is the Board that is the employer of the dock
workers and that the Board is liable for meeting the claim for
bonus.
The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the br :i.us
claim by the workmen is 'tonnage bonus' because while loading or
unloading cargo any particular gi.ng or gangs of workmen may
not be working continuously for a given period for a particular
Steverlore and therefore the bonus that ha.; to be paid to the dock
workers must be on the basis of the tonnage handled by them.
The Tribunal .-then considered the rate at which bonus it to be
awardeC! for the three
years.
Ultimately it has held
that the
demand for bonus by the workmen for the three years in question
is justified and it has to be paid by the Board at the rate of 13
paise per ton for the year 1964-65, at 14 paise per ton for the
year 1965-66 and at 15 paise per ton for the year 1966-67.
The learned Attorney General, on behalf of the appellant,
raised two contentions : (i) That the Tribunal has acted illegally
and without jurisdiction in making the Board liable for payment
of bonus when the claim of the workmen for such payment was
against the Stevedores Association and its members and; (ii) having
due regard to the provisions of the Act and the Scheme a!ld the
A
B
c;
D
E
F
G
H
8
c
[)
...
G
II
DOCK LABOUR BOARD v. STEVEDORES ASSCN. (Vaidialingam, J.) 307
functions discharged by the Board, the Tribunal should have held
that there is no employer-employee relationship between the Board
and the Dock Labour workmen and, as such the Board could not
be made liable for the claim.
Regarding the first contention, the learned Attorney General
invited our attention to the nature of the claim made by the two
Unions as well as the discussion contained in respect of such claim
in the award.
The Attorney General also referred us to the plea
taken by the Board in its written statement tha~ a claim exclusively
made by the dock workers as against the Stevedores should not be
allowed by the Stevedores to be converted into a claim made as
against the Board and that no award could be passed against the
Board contrary to the claim of the workmen themselves.
Mr. K. Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel appearing for
the
Stevedores Association, urged that the claim by the Unions was
for payment of bonus against the Board and therefore the Board
has been properly made liable.
Alternatively, the counsel urged
that the claim by the Unions was for payment of bonus and the
Tribunal was perfectly justified in considering which party was
liable to meet this claim.
It was in considering such a claim that
the Tribunal had held the Board to be liable.
Having due regard to the nature of the claim and the basis on
which the Tribunal it~elf has proceeded, we are satisfied that the
claim for bonus has been made by the Unions specifically against
the Stevedores Association and its members and, as such,
the
Tribunal was not justified in making the Board liable.
In the statement of claim filed by the Port Khalasis Union, m
paragraph 2 it is stated that since the Stevedores are the registered
employers of the Dock Labour Board, the bonus should be settled
by the Stevedores Association only.
In paragraph 14 the Union
has stated that the plea of the Stevedores at Visakhapatnam that
they are not concerned with the demand for
bonus since the
workers are registered with the Dock Labour Board is wrong, baseless and aimed at confusing the issue.
After referring to the
agreements arrived at between the Stevedores workmen and 'he
Stevedores at Bombay, Calcutta, Cochin and Madras, the Union
has stated in par,flgraph 15 that the Stevedores at Visakhapatnam
Port are in no way different and they cannot disclaim their responsibilities for payment of bonus to the workmen.
Simill11'ly, the Dock Workers Union in its sfatemcnt, has
referred to the fact that it has been agitating for many years for the
introduction of payment of bonus as obtaining in Madras, Bombay,
Calcutta and Cochin.
The Union has further stated that the Ste-
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S,C.R.
vcdorcs of Visakhapatnam are the employers regiskrcd in .the
Doc~ Labour Board as the real employers.
It has further stated
that the Stevedore companies are pr;,vate employers who work for
a consideration and derive large profits out of the employment and
the operations of the Stevedore workers.
The Stevedores have
bee.n resisting the claim of the workmen for payment of bonus and
have been postponing consideration of the claim.
The Union lias
further stated .tha~ payment of bonus can be made by the Board
on l.Jehalf of the Stevedores and the Stevedoring business is very
lucrative and profitable.
The Unfon further prayed the TribnnJI
to summon the accounts of the St~vedores as the claim of the workmen regarding the financial position of the Stevedores will
he
fully found established.
The Stevedores Association no doubt has stated that the J)rn;k
workers are the workmen of the Board as all the ingredients of
master and servant e.xist as between the Board and the dock
workers.
The Board has ca:egorically stated in its written state·
mcnt that the dock workers' claim against the Stevedores should
not be allowed to be converted by the Stevedores into a claim
against the Board.
The Board has further specifically pleadccl
that no award could be passed against it contrary to the claim
made by the dock workers themselves.
The various averments contained in the statements referred to
above will clearly show that the claim for payment of bonus by
the dock workers was essentially and in the main directed a:;ainsl
the Stevedores Association and its members.
Otherwise a reference by the Union to the prosperity and . lucrative business CLlll·
ducted by the Stevedores and the large profits made by them will
have no relevancy at all.
No doubt here and there are certain
averments regarding the Board, but so far as we could see, no
specific Claim for payment of bonus as against the Board has been
made.
On the other hand the claim is that the Board 'on behalf
of the. Stevedores in Visakhapatn~m' can pay· the bonus claimed
by the Unions.
The statement filed by the Stevedores Association
;ilso makes .it clear that they understood the claim by the workmen
as directed against them because it makes various avcrments to
establish that the workmen have no claim as against them as the
Stevedores Association or its members ate not the employers nf
the workmen.
The Board has specifically stated that a claim
made against the Stevedores should not be converted into <l claim
made against the Board and no award can be passed contrary to
the c!.llim of the workmen themselves.
That the Tribunal <iiso
understood that the claim of the workmen was against the Stevedores Association and its members is also evident from the stateA
B
c
u
E
...
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DOCK LAROUR BOARD v. STEVEDORES ASSCN. (Vaidialingam, J.) 309
ment in para 4 of the award wherein the Tribunal observes as
follows:
"The claimants claim bonus for the three years mentioned in the issue, and they claim that it should be paid
by the Stevedores.
They claim that it should be paid
on the same basis as adopted at the other ports viz., Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Cochin."
That th~ claim for bonus in the four areas referred to above w~
being met by the respective Stevedores Associations-though on
the basis of agreement-is no~ in dispute.
The observation
extracted earlier shows that the Tribunal has also proceeded on
the basis that the claim by the workmen has to be adjudicated upon
on the basis that it is the liability of the Stevedores.
But, unfortunately, in the latter part of the award the Tribunal has mixed up
the discussion regarding the liability of the Board or the Stevedores
Association and has ultimately held that the Board is liable for
payment of bonus.
No doubt the basis for this conclusion is that
the Board is the employer of the dock workers.
The correctness
of the view about the Board being the employer of the dock
workers will be considered by us when we deal with the second
contention of the learned Attorney General.
To conclude on the
first aspect the learned Attorney General is well founded in his
contention that in view of the pleadings and the nature of the
claim made by the workmen the award making the Board liable
for payment of bonus is not correct.
Normally, our decision accepting the first contention of the
learned Attorney General is enough to dispose of the appeal. But,
as the Tribunal has adjudicated upon the contention of the Board
that it is not the employer of the dock workers and heir! against
it, we shall proceed to consider the second contention of the
learned Attorney General.
In order to appreciate the relationship between the Board, the
dock workers and the Stevedores AssociatiOI), it is necessary to
refer to certain provisions of the Act and the Scheme.
But before
w.e do so, we can broadly set out hOw the work of loading and
unloading of ships in the port of Visakhapatnam is being done.
The Board maintains a Dock Labour pool.
The shipping companies have their agents at Visakhapatnam.
The Stevedores enter
into contracts with the ship-owne • .; for the loading and unload'ng
of cargo. The contracts contain clauses re~arding the rate per
ton of cargo payable to the Stevedores who handle the loading or
the unloading of cargo.
The shipping agents inform the Stevedores about the ship that is due to arrive as also the nature. and
quantity of the cargo to be loaded or unloaded.
The Stevedores
inform the Board about the quantity of cargo to be loaded or
L2SupCI/70-8
:310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
.unloaded and place an indent stating the approximate labour force
that may be required for the said purpose.. The Board supplies
the Jabour force as asked for.
Along with the labour force the
Board deputes two supervisors who are called the loading mazdoors
and the tindal.
The Stevedores employ one Foreman for the
entire operation of either loading or unloading.
The duty of the
Foreman appears to be to see that the cargo is not damaged and
that it is properly handled by the labour force supplied hy the
Board.
The Stevedores have to carry on the work with the Jabour
force supplied by the Board and they cannot engage outside labour
for the work.
The Stevedores pay to the Board for the services of
the workers supplied by it.
Over and above the wages due to the
labourers and paid to the Board the Stevedores have also to pay
I 05 % of the acutal wages to the Board known as 'General &
Welfare Levy'.
The Board utilises this additional amount for
making certain payments to the workers.
The Stevedores cannot
take any disciplinary action against the workmen but, on the other
hand, they have. to complain to the Board. The Board takes the
necessary disciplinary action against the workers concerned. It
fixes the rates of wages to be paid by the Stevedores and collects
the same from them and pays to the workers.
A particular gang
Df workmen may work for one Stevedore on a particular day and
on the next day they may work for another Stevedore. In fact
it may even happen that one gang of workmen work for different
Stevedores in the course of the same day.
We shall now refer to the salient features of the Act and the
Scheme.
The object of the Act is to provide for regulatin;; the
employment of dock workers. Section 2 defines inter alia the
expressions 'Board', 'Dock worker', 'employer' and 'scheme·. The
expression 'Dock worker' in brief means a person employed or to
be employed in, or in the vicinity of, any port on work in connection with the various -matters referred to in the definition.
'Employer', in relation to a dock worker, means the person by
whom he is employed or to be employed as aforesaid.
'Scheme'
has been defined to mean a scheme made under the Act. Section
3 provides for the scheme being made for the registration of dock
workers and employers with a view to ensuring greater regularity
of employment and for regul~.ting the employment of dock workers, whether registered or not, in a port.
A perusal of clauses
(a) to (k) of sub-s. (2) of s. 3 shows that the scheme may take
provision for various matters which include reg_ulating the recruitment and entry into the scheme of dock workers, the registration
of dock workers and employers, the employment of dock workers
as well as the terms and conditions of emplqyme)lt, including rates
Df remuneration etc. The scheme may also prdvide for the manner in which, and the persons by whom, the cost of operating
tl,e scheme is to be Jefrayed as well as for constituting the authoA
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DOCK LABOUR BOARD v. STEVEDORES ASSCN. (Vaidialingam, J.) 311
rity to be responsible for the administration of the scheme.
Section S provides for the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, when making a scheme, constituting
an Advisory Committee to advise upon such matters arising out
of the administration of the Act or any scheme made under it as
well as regarding its composition.
The Advisory Committee shall
include an equal number of members representing the Government, the dock workers and the employers of dock workers and
shipping companies.
Section SA provides for the establishment
of a Dock Labour Board by the Government for a port or group
of ports, as well as its composition.
Under s. SB the Board is
made responsible for administering the scheme for the port or
group of ports for which it has been established and also the
Board is to exercise such powers and perform such functions as
may be conferred on it by the scheme.
The Central Government has framed a scheme under sub-s. (1)
of s. 4 of the Act for the Port of Vizagapatnam. Clause 2 states
that the objects of the Scheme are to ensure greater regularity of
employment for dock workers and to secure that an adequate nwnber of dock workers is available for the efficient performance of
dock work.
The Scheme applies to the registered dock workers
and registered employers.
Clause 3 definies the various expressions.
'Daily worker' means a registered dock worker who is not
a monthly worker.
'Monthly worker' means a regi>tered
dock
worker who is engaged by a registered employer or a group of
such employers on a monthly basis under a contract which requir<:s
for its termination at least 1 monht's notice on either side. 'Dock
employer' means a person by whom a dock worker is employed or
is to be employed and also includes a group of dock employers
formed under cl. 14(l)(d). 'Registered dock worker's means a
dock worker whose name is for the time being entered in the employers' register.
'Reserve pool' means a pool of registered do~k
workers who are available for work and who are not for the time
being in the employment of a registered employer or a group of
dock employers as monthly workers.
Clause 5 provides for the
Central Government appointing an Administrative Body for the
purpose of carrying on
the
day-to-day administration of che
Scheme.
There is no controversy that the Vizagapatam Stevedores' Association, in this case, has been appointed as the Administrative Body.
Under cl. 7 dealing with the various functions of the Board,
the latter is authorised to take various measures for furthering the
objects of the Scheme.
The measures contemplated under subcls. (a) to (i) of cl. 7(1) include ensuring the adequate supply
and the full and proper utilisation of the dock Jabour, regulating
the recruitmeyit and entry into and the discharge from the Schem~.
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
o.f dock workers, the allocation of registered dock workers in the
reserve pool to registered employers, maintaining the employers'
registers and dock register of dock workers, the levying and recovering from registered employers, contributions in respect of the
expenses of the Scheme, administering the Dock Workers Welfare
Fund a,nd recovering from registered employers contribution for
rnch fund, administering a Provident Fund and a Gratuity Fund
for registered dock workers in the reserve pool.
The various
functions enumerated show that the Board's primary responsibility
;, the administration of the Scheme and to sec that the work iJll the
dock is properly done and the labour employed for such purpose
i< not exploited. Among the responsibilities and duties enumerated in cl. 8 are the fixing of the number of dock workers to be
registered under various categories, considering registraticm of
new employers, determination of the wages, allowance and other
conditions of service and fixing the rate of c'Jntribution to be made
ry registered employers to the Dock Workers Welfare Fund.
l..'nder cl. 9(1 )(k), the Chairma,n of the Board is given power to
take disciplinary action against registered dock workers and employers in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Under
d. 11, the Administrative Body has been made responsible for the
administration of the Scheme and in particular of the various
matt~rs mentioned in sub-els. (a) to (k). Sub-cl.
(e) thereof
provides for the Administrative Body allocating registered dock
workers in the reserve pool who are available for work to registered employers and for this purpose, under cl. ( i) thereof the
Administrative Body is deemed to act as an agent for the employer.
Sub-els. ( i) and (ii) of cl. ( f) cast the duty on the Administrative Body of collecting the levy, contribution to the Dock
Workers Welfare Fund or any other ccmtribution from the employers as may be prescribed under the Scheme, as well
as the
collection of the registered dock workers' contribution to tl•e
P-ovident Fund, Insurance Fund or any other fund which may be
constituted under the Scheme.
Sub-cl. (iii) makes the AdJUinistrative Body respoinsible for payment as agent of the registered
employer to each daily worker of all earnings properly due to the
dock worker from the employer and the payment to such workers
of all monies payable by the Board to those workers in accordance with the Scheme.
Two points emerge from cl.
11
(viz.)
when allocating registered dock workers in the reserve pool for
work to registered employers, the Administrative Body is deemed
to act as agent for the employer; and the payment to each daily
worker of all earniJllgs properly due to him from the employer is
made by the Administrative Body as agent of the registered
employer.
Clause 14 deals with the maintenance of Employers' Register
and the Workers' Registers. Clause 18 deals with promotion and
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DOCK LABOUR BOARD v. STEVEDORES ASSCN. (Vaidialingam, !.) 313
transfer of workers,
Sub-cl. ( 3) thereof deals with the transfer
of a monthly worker to the reserve pool at the request of the employer or the worker, but such transfer is made subject to the
fulfilment of any contract subsistiing between the monthly worker
and his employer.
Sub-cl, ( 4) provides for considering the
req\leSt for transfer to a reserve pool by a monthly worker whose
services have been terminated by his employer for an act of
indiscipline or misconduct.
Clauses 30, 31 and 33 deal with the payment of guaranteed
minimum wages to a worker in the reserve pool register, payment
of attendaince allowance and disappointment money to such worker, respectively.
Clause 36 deals with the obligations of registered dock workers and cl. ( 2) thereof states that a registered
worker in the reserve pool who is available for work shalJ be
deemed to be in the employment of the Board.
We have already
seen that under cl. 11 ( e), when allocating registered dock workers
in the reserve pool for work to registered employers, the Administrative Body shall be deemed to act as an agent for the employer:
Under sub-cl. (5) of cl. 36 a registered dock worker when allo·-
cated for employmt<nt under a registered employer is bound to
carry out his duties in accordance with the directions of such
registered employer or his authorised representative or supervisor
and the rules of the port or place where he is working. Clause 37
enumerates the obligations of registered employers.
They are
prohibited from employing a worker other than a dock worker who
has been allocated to him by the Administrative Body under cl.
1 l(e).
The registered employers are also b\)und to pay the Administrative Body the levy under cl. 51(1) as well as the gross wages
due to a daily worker.
They are also bound to make contributions to the Dock Workers Welfare Fund under cl. 53.
Clause 3 8 deals with restriction on employment.
Registered
employers are prohibited from engaging workers on dock work
unless they are registered dock wor'.cers.
It also prohibits persons
other than registered employers employing any worker on dock
work.
Under cl. 40 it is provided that it shall be an implied
cqndition of contract between a registered worker
(whether in
the reserve pool or on the monthly register) and a
registered
employer that the rates of wages, ·allowances and overtime, hours
of work shalJ be such as may be prescribed by the Board for each
category of workers and the fixation of wage periods etc., shall be
in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act,
1936.
Clause 44 deals with disciplinary proced1.ue to be followed in taking action against a registered employer and a registered
dock worker.
Clause 46 deals with termination of employment.
Clause 51 provides for the cost of operating the Scheme beinO"
defrayed by payments made by registered employers to the Board.
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] '.?, S.C.R.
It provides for the registered employer paying to the Board such
amount by way of levy in respect of the Reserve Pool Workers
when paying the gross amount of wages due from them Uillder
cl. 37(5) (i). Clauses 52 an.d 53 provide for Provident Fund
and Gratuity and Dock Workers Welfare Fund respectively.
We have rather elaborately gone into the various matters
dealt with under the Act and the Scheme as that will give a true
picture of the nature of the functions a,nd duties that the Board
disc1'arges in respect of the work carried on in the port.
From
the various provisions of the Act 'and the Scheme referred to
above, it is evic' ~nt that the Board is a statutory body charged
with the duty of administering the Scheme, the object of which i~
to ensure greater regularity of employment for dock workers and
to secure that an adequate number of dock workers are available
for the eflici1111t performance of dock work.
The Board is an
autonomous body, competent to determine and prescribe the
wages, allowances and other conditions of service of the Dock
workers.
The purport of the Scheme is that the entire body of
workers should be under the control and supervision of the Board.
The registered employers are allocated monthly workers by the
Administrative Body and the Admiinistrative Body supplies whenever necessary, the labour force to the Stevedores from the Reserve
Pool. The workmen who are allotted to the registered employers
are to do the work un'1er the control and supervision of the
registered employers and to act under their directions.
The
registered employers pay the wages due to the workers to the
Administrative Body and the latter, in turn, as agenti of the registered employers, pay them over to the cqncerned workmen.
All these circumstances, in our opinion, prima facie establish
that the Board cannot be considered to be the employer of the
Dock Labour workmen. In fact the various provisions referred
to in the Scheme, clearly show that the registered employer to
whom the labour force is allotted by the Board is the employer
whose work of loading l)r unloading of ships is done by the dock
workers allotted to them.
Mr: Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel for the respondents,
referred us to certain circumstances to support his contention that
the relationship of employer-employee exists between the Board
and the dock workers.
Some of those circumstances are recruitment and registration of the dock labour force, fixation of wai;es
and deamess allowance, payment of workmen's compensation,
taking of disciplinary action and prohibition against employment
of. workmen who are not registered with the Board.
These circumstances, in our opinion, do not ~stablish a relationship of
employer aind employee between the Board and the dock labour.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
DOCK LABOUR BOARD v. STEVEDORES ASSCN. (Vaidialingam, J.) 31 s
The functions referred to above are discharged by the Board
unde'r the Scheme, the object of which, as mentioned earlier, is to
ensure greater regularity of employment for dock workers and to
secure that an adequate number of dock workers is available for
the efficient performance of dock work. It is with this purpose
in view that the Scheme has provided for various matters and
considerable duties and respoinsibilities are cast on the Board in
this regard.
But we have also already pointed out that under
sub-cl. (5) of cl. 36 a registered dock worker when allotted for
employment under a registered employer, shall carry out his duties
in accordance with the directions of such registered employer and
cl. 11 ( e) also makes it clear that in the matter of allocation of
registered dock workers in the Reserve Pool to registered employers, the Administrative Body shall be deemed to act as agent for
the employer.
Though the cO)Iltributions for the Dock Workers'
Welfare Fund as well as the wages and other earnings due to a
worker are paid by the registered employer to the Board at the
rates fixed by it, the latter passes on the same to the dock worker
concerned, as ;igent of the registered employer, under cl. ll(f)(iii).
Further, the definition of the expression 'dock worker' and
'employer' under s. 2(b) and (c) respectively of thr Act and the
defi,nition of 'dock employer' and 'monthly worker' in els. 3 (g)
and (k) respectively of the Scheme and the obligation cast .under
s. 36 ( 5) of the Scheme on a registered dock worker when allocated
for employment under a registered employer to carry out his
duties in accordance with the directions of the latter and the provisions contained .in cl. 37(5) of the Scheme regardijng payment
by a registered employer to the Administrative Body of the gross
wages due to the dock worker and the implied condition of contract between the registered dock worker and the registered employer under cl. 40, read along with the provisions regarding the
F . functiqns of the Board, in our view, clearly lead to the conclusion
that the Board cannot be considered to be the employer of the
dock workmen and there is no relationship of master and servant
between the two.
G
H
Mr. Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel, referred us to the decision of this Court in Kirloskar Oil Errgines v. Hanmant Laxman
Bibawe (') in which, according to him, an inference of relationship of master and servant was not drawn, though for all practical
purposes a pei.son was working under the directions of another.
The question that arose for, consideration in that case was whether
a watchman deputed to work by the Police Department under a
private individual on the basis of a Scheme could be considered
to be the employee of the latter, after considering the salient
features of the scheme framed by the Police Department and after
(1) [1963]3.ii.C.R.514.'
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
observing that a decision on the question as to the relationship of
employer-employee has to be determined in the light of relevant
facts '3lld circumstances and that it would not be expedi~t to lay
clown any particular test as decisive in the matter, this Court held
that a relationship of master and servant, between the watchman
and the private employer, did not exist, notwithstandiing the fact
that the private employer was enit!ed to issue orders to the watchman deputed to work under him.
The scheme dealt with in this
decision was entirely different from the Scheme before us.
The learned counsel then referred us to a decision of a Single
Judge of the Kerala High Court i;n C. V. A. Hydross & Son v.
Joseph Sanjon(').
That decision had to consider the question
regarding payment of retrenchment compensation to certain workmen who had registered themselves as workmen under the Dock
Labour Board.
They had filed a claim against the permanent
Stevedores under whom they were working originally.
The learned Judge, after a consideration of the Scheme framed for the
Cochin Port, which is substantially similar to the one before us, held
that the Board was the employer of the workmen.
We are not
inclined to agree with this decision.
We may also refer to the decision ot t. e Calcutta High Court
in A. C. Rc;y & Co. Ltd. v. Taslim('). There no doubt the question arose in respect of a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Chief Justice, after a brief analysis
of the .A ~t and the Scheme framed for the Calcutta Port, held that
when the Administrative Body of the Board allocated a worker
in the Reserve Pool to the registered employer, then for the time
being and for the purpose ot the work concer1ned, that worker becomes an employee under the registered employer; and in that
decision the Court came to the conclusion that the partictilar
worker concerned was at the material time under the employ of
the Stevedore.
When that is the position with regard to a workman ~n the Reserve Pool, it stands to reason that the monthly
worker who is engaged by a registered employer under a contract
on a monthly basis is an employee of such registered employer.
The matter can also be considered from another point of view,
viz., can it be stated that the Board is carrying on an industry, so
as to attract the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act? We
have already referred to the various circumstances which will show
that there is no employment as such of. the dock worker by the
Board.
As observed by this Court in Gymkhana Club Union v.
Management(').
----· -------
(I) [196711 L.L.J. 500.
(2) 71 C.W.N. 531.
(J)
1968] 1 S.C.R. 742. 752.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DOCK LABOUR BOARD v.