IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.882 OF 1998 The Chairman, Bombay Port Trust & Anr. ..Plaintiffs Vs. M/s. M. B. Eduljee Cassinath Sons ..Defendants Mr. U.J.Makhija with Mr. Parag Khandhar i/b Mulla & Mulla & CBC for the Plaintiffs None for the Defendants CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: 10th September , 2009 P.C. : 1. The Suit has been instituted by the Chairman and the Board of Trustees of the Port Trust, for the recovery of an amount of Rs.47,48,748.01, together with interest. The Defendants have been served with the Writ of Summons by substituted service, in pursuance of a Chamber Order. The Defendants have failed to appear. The suit has been listed as an undefended suit for an exparte decree. 2. The Bombay Dock Labour Board was constituted under the provisions of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. Under the Act the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956 was framed. Under the Scheme registered employers were allowed to indent registered workers of the Board. It was obligatory for registered employers to pay wages of the workers in the register and the levy payable under clause 51(1) of the Scheme. By two notifications dated 25th February 1994 the Central Government superseded the Bombay Dock Labour Board for a period of one year and all powers and functions came to be vested in Plaintiff No.1. The supersession has been extended subsequently by Notifications the last of which is till 31.12.2009. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Settlement dated 25th January 1994, employees including the registered workers covered by the Scheme, were absorbed in employment of the Port Trust. On 22nd June 1993 the Central government constituted a Bipartite Wage Negotiation Committee for Class III and Class IV Dock Workers. A Wage Revision Settlement was arrived at on 6th December 1994, as a result of which the salaries of the employees and registered workers of the Port Trust and Dock Labour Board were revised from 1st January 1993 to 31st December 1994. 3. The Defendants carried on the business of Stevedoring and were the registered as employers by the erstwhile the Bombay Dock Labour Board. On the basis of indents and as registered employers, the Defendants were liable to pay charges to the Board and thereafter to Plaintiff No.1. The Suit has been instituted for the recovery of the amount due and payable by the Defendants under the provisions of the said Act to the Board and to the Plaintiffs. 4. As a result of Wage Revision Settlement, the arrears payable for the period 1st January 1993 to 31st December 1994, were paid to eligible employees and workers who were members of the erstwhile Board. These payments were to be reimbursed by the registered employers including the Defendants.. Wage arrear bills were raised by Plaintiff No.1 on registered Stevedores including the Defendants. A bill in the amount of Rs. 47,00561.20 was raised upon the Defendants for the period 1st January 1993 to 28th February 1995. The bill was dispatched to the Defendants on 11th September 1995. The Plaintiffs received a letter dated 23rd September 1995 from the Bombay Stevedores Association Limited, referring to 14 bills submitted to the members of the Association and denying liability. There was an exchange of correspondence. On 11th September 1995, the Plaintiffs received a letter from the Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport with regard to the new dearness allowance formula. The Plaintiffs furnished to the Defendants a bill dated 1st August 1997 in respect of the variable dearness allowance from 1st January 1993 to 28th February 1994. The Defendants failed to pay. The Suit has been filed for the recovery of the amount due and payable by the Defendants. 5. The Defendants failed to enter appearance, despite service of the Writ of Summons. The averments in the Plaint have not been controverted. The Plaintiffs have relied upon an Affidavit of Examination-in-chief and a Compilation of the documents. In the absence of any contest, the claim has been duly proved. The Suit shall stand decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), with the modification that the Plaintiffs will be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. until payment or realisation. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J)