Appeal No 2113 of 1968
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated May 24 1968 of the Industrial Tribunal Andhra Pradesh in ID No 10 of 1967
Niren De
Attorney General SK Dholakia RH Dhebar and SP Nayar for the appellant
K Srinivasamurthy and Naunit Lal for respondents Nos 1 to 12
BP Maheshwari 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 24 1968 of the Industrial Tribunal Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad in ID No 10 of 1967 holding that the appellant should 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 whether the demand for payment of bonus to Dock Labour Board Workers employed at Visakhapatnam Port for the acconting years 305 1964 65 1965 66 and 1966 67 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 Act IX of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Vizagapatam Dock Workers Regulation of Employment Scheme 1959 hereinafter 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 of 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 the employees of the Stevedores and as such no claim for bonus could be made as against the Stevedores Association or its members
the Association further pleaded that it
was an unnecessary party of the Reference and the workmen had no claim as against it in view of the fact that the Association or its members were not the 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 the Stevedores that they were not the employers of the dock workers
The Board claimed that it was a statutory body constituted under the Act and governed by the 306 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 Visakhapatnam 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 agent 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 to 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 bonus claim by the workmen is tonnage bonus  because while loading or unloading cargo any particular gang or gangs of workmen may not be working continuously for a given period for a particular Stevedore and therefore the bonus that has 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 awarded 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 and the 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 that 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 itself 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 the Stevedores at Bombay Calcutta Cochin and Madras the Union has stated in paragraph 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
Similarly the Dock Workers Union in its statement 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 vedores of Visakhapatnam are the employers registered in the Dock Labour Board as the real employers
It has further stated that the Stevedore companies are private employers who work for a consideration and derive large profits out of the employment and the operations of the Stevedore workers
The Stevedores have been resisting the claim of the workmen for payment of bonus and have been postponing consideration of the claim
The Union has further stated that payment of bonus can be made by the Board on behalf of the Stevedores and the Stevedoring business is very lucrative and profitable
The Union further prayed the Tribunal to summon the accounts of the Stevedores as the claim of the workmen regarding the financial position of the Stevedores will be fully found established
The Stevedores Association no doubt has stated that the Dock workers are the workmen of the Board as all the ingredients of master and servant exist as between the Board and the dock workers
The Board has categorically stated in its written statement 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 pleaded 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 against the Stevedores Association and its members
Otherwise a reference by the Union to the prosperity and lucrative business conducted by the Stevedores and the large profits made by them wilt 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 Visakhapatnam  can pay the bonus claimed by the Unions
The statement filed by the Stevedores Association also makes it clear that they understood the claim by the workmen as directed against them because it makes various averments to establish that the workmen have no claim as against them as the Stevedores Association or its members are not the employers of the workmen
The Board has specifically stated that a claim made against the Stevedores should not be converted into a claim made against the Board and no award can be passed contrary to the claim  of the workmen themselves
That the Tribunal also understood that the claim of the workmen was against the Stevedores Association and its members is also evident from the state 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 the claim for bonus in the four areas referred to above was being met by the respective Stevedores Associations though on the basis of agreement is not 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 rounded 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 6onus 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 held 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 Association it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act and the Scheme
But before we 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 Visakhapamam
The Stevedores enter into contracts with the ship owners for the loading and unloading of cargo
The contracts contain clauses regarding 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 L2SupCI70 8 310 unloaded and place an indent stating the approximate labour force that may be required for the said purpose
The Board supplies the labour 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 by the Board
The Stevedores have to carry on the work with the labour 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 105 of the actual 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 of 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 regulating 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 regulating the employment of dock workers whether registered or not in a port
A perusal of clauses a to k of sub section
2 of section 3 shows that the scheme may take provision for various matters which include regulating 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 employment including rates of remuneration etc
The scheme may also provide for the manner in which and the persons by whom the cost of operating the scheme is to be derrayed as well as for constituting the autho 311 rity to be responsible for the administration of the scheme
Section 5 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 5A 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 section 5B 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 flamed a scheme under sub section
1 of section 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 number 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 registered dock worker who is engaged by a registered employer or a group of such employers on a monthly basis under a contract which requirs for its termination at least 1 month 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 141d 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 dock 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 the 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
71 include ensuring the adequate supply and the full and proper utilisation of the dock labour regulating the recruitmeant and entry into and the discharge from the Scheme 312 of 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 and recovering from registered employers contribution for such 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 is the administration of the Scheme and to see that the work in the dock is properly done and the labour employed for such purpose is not exploited
Among the responsibilities and duties enumerated in el 8 are the fixing of the number of dock workers to
be registered under various categories considering registration of new employers determination of the wages allowance and other conditions of service and fixing the rate of contribution to be made by registered employers to the Dock Workers Welfare Fund
Under el 9 1 k the Chairman 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 cl 11 the Administrative Body has been made responsible for the administration of the Scheme and in particular of the various matters mentioned in sub cls
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 cls
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 contribution from the employers as may be prescribed under the Scheme as well as the collection of the registered dock workers  contribution to the Provident Fund Insurance Fund or any other fund which may be constituted under the Scheme
Sub cl
iii makes the Administrative Body responsible 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 earnings 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 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 subsisting between the monthly worker and his employer
Sub cl
4provides for considering the request 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 attendatnce 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 shall be deemed to be in the employment of the Board
We have already seen that under el 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 el
5 of el
36 a registered dock worker when allocated for employment 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 el
Ile
The registered employers are also bound to pay the Administrative Body the levy under cl
511 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 el
Clause 38 deals with restriction on employment
Registered employers are prohibited from engaging workers on dock work unless they are registered dock workers
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 condition 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 shall 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 
Clause 44 deals with disciplinary procedure 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 being defrayed by payments made by registered employers to the Board
314 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 under cl 375i
Clauses 52 and 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 and duties that the Board discharges 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 evident that the Board is a statutory body charged with the duty of administering the Scheme the object of which is to ensure greater regularity of employment for dock workers and to secure that an adequate number of dock workers are available for the efficient 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 Administrative 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 under 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 agent of the registered employers pay them over to the concerned 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 or 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 wages and dearness 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 establish a relationship of employer and employee between the Board and the dock labour 315 The functions referred to above are discharged by the Board under 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 responsibilities 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 contributions 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 agent of the registered employer under cl 1 lfiii
Further the definition of the expression dock worker  and employer  under section 2b and c respectively of the Act and the definition of dock employer  and monthly worker  in cls
3g and k respectively of the Scheme and the obligation cast under section 365 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
375 of the Scheme regarding 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 functions 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
Mr Srinivasamurthy learned counsel referred us to the decision of this Court in Kirloskar Oil Engines vs Hanmant Laxman Bibawe1 in which according to him an inference of relationship of master and servant was not drawn though for all practical purposes a person 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 SCR514
316 observing that a decision on the question as to the relationship of employer employee has to be determined in the light of relevant facts and circumstances and that it would not be expedient to lay down 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 notwithstanding the fact that the private employer was enitled 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 in CVA Hydross  Son vs Joseph Sanjon1
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 of the Calcutta High Court in AC Roy  Co Ltd vs Taslim2
There No doubt the question arose in respect of a claim under the 
The learned Chief Justice after a brief analysis of the Act 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 of the work concerned that worker becomes an employee under the registered employer and in that decision the Court came to the conclusion that the particular worker concerned was at the material time under the employ of the Stevedore
When that is the position with regard to a workman in 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 G vmkhana Club Union vs Management  3 
1 2 31 317 What matters is not the nexus between the employee and the product of the employer s efforts but the nature of the employer s occupation
If his work can not be described as an industry his workmen are not industrial workmen and the disputes arising between them are not industrial disputes
The cardinal test is thus to find out whether there is an industry according to the denotation of the word in the first part
The second part will then show what will be included from the angle of employees
 Dealing with the definition of industry  this Court further observed The definition of industry  is in two parts
its first part it means any business trade undertaking manufacture or calling of employers
This part of the definition determines an industry by reference to occupation of employers in respect of certain activities
These activities are specified by five words and they determine what an industry is and what the cognate expression industrial  is intended to convey
This is the denotation of the term or what the word denotes
We shall presently discuss what the words business trade undertaking manufacture or calling  comprehend
The second part views the matter from the angle of employees and is designed to include something more in what the term primarily denotes
By the second part of the definition any calling service employment handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen is included in the concept of industry
This part gives the extended connotation
If the activity can be described as an industry with reference to the occupation of the employers the ambit of the industry under the force of the second part takes in the different kinds of activity of the employees mentioned in the second part
But the second part standing alone cannot define industry 
An industry is not to be found in every case of employment or service
 Dealing with the expression industri al dispute  in the Industrial Disputes Act this Court further proceeds to state in the above decision at p 757  the words are industrial dispute  and not trade dispute 
Trade is only one aspect of industrial activity business and manufacture are two others
The word also is not industry in the abstract which means diligence or assiduity in any task or effort but a branch 318 of productive labour
This requires cooperation in some form between employers and workmen and the result is directly the product of this association but not necessarily commercial and wound up the discussion at p 758 thus Industry is the nexus between employers and employees and it is this nexus which brings two distinct bodies together to produce a result
 Applying the above principles to the case on hand in our opinion it is clear that it cannot be stated that the Board functioning under the Act and the Scheme carries on any industry so as 10 attract the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act
As a claim for any type of bonus can be met only from the actual employer in respect of any industry and as we have held that the Board is neither the employer nor carries on any industry it follows that the Industrial Tribunal was wrong in directing the Board to pay bonus for the years in question
In this view the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated May 24 1968 has to be set aside
But as the claim of the workmen against the Stevedores Association and its members who are parties to the Reference has to be considered and adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal ID No 10 of 1967 has to be remanded to the Industrial Tribunal concerned for disposal according to law
The Tribunal will be at liberty to call upon the parties concerned to file supplementary statements and permit them to adduce further evidence oral and documentary which may be considered necessary but it is made clear that the Dock Labour Board the appellant will be completely out of the picture in the rein and proceedings
In the result the order of the Industrial Tribunal Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad dated May 24 1968 is set aside and this appeal allowed
ID No 10 is remanded to the said Tribunal to be dealt with and disposed of according to law and the directions contained in this judgment
Parties will bear their own costs of this appeal
YP Appeal allowed


Summary:
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 for 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 Association and its members and ii having regard 10 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 discharged by the Board there was no employer employee relationship between the Board and the workmen and as such the Board could be 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 bonus 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 be considered to be the
employer of the Dock Labour Workmen
From the provisions of Dock Workers Regulation of Employment Act and the Vizagapatnam Dock Workers 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 employment for dock workers arc available for the efficient performance of dock work
The Board is an autonomous body competent 10 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 Administrative 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 under 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 agent of the registered employers pay them 304 over to the concerned workmen
The registered employer to whom the labour force is allotted by the Board is the employer whose work to them
The functions of the Board such as recruitment and registration of the dock labour force fixation of wages and dearness allowance payment of workmen s compensation taking of disciplinary action and prohibition against employment of workers who were not registered with the
Board do not establish a relationship of employer and employee between the Board and the dock labour
Further the Board functioning under the Act and the Scheme cannot be
said to carry on any industry so as to attract the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act
As a claim for any type of bonus can be met only from the actual employer in respect of any industry and as the Board is neither the employer nor carries on any industry the Tribunal was wrong in directing the Board to pay Bonus for the years in question
316 B E G H 320 C Gymkhana Club Union vs Management 1968 1 SCR 742 752 applied
A C Roy  Co Ltd vs Taslim  referred to
Kirlosker Oil Engines vs Hanmant Laxman Bihawej  distinguished
CVAHydross  Son vs Joseph Senjon 11967 1 LLJ 509 disapproved