Case: Vizagapatam Dock Labour Board Vs. Stevedores Association, Vishakhapatnam &amp; Ors

2. The Central Govt., 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 accounting years67 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.3. 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 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Vizagapatnam 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 for15 paise per ton forThe 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 claims for bonus could be made as against the Stevedores Association or its members. The Association further pleaded that it was an unnecessary party to 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.5. 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 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 theadministration 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.6. 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 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 is 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 yearat 14 paise per ton for the year15 paise per ton for

Reasoning:
10. 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.11. In the statement of claim filed by the Port Khalasis Union, in 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 contusing 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 Para 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.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.14. 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 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 Visakhapatnam can pay the bonus claimed by the Union. 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.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.15. 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.16. 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 Visakhapatnam. The Stevedores enter into contracts with thefor 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 quality of cargo to be loaded or 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 desputes 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 per cent of the actual wages to the Board known as General and 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 have rather elaborately gone into the various matters dealt 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.24.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.25.Mr. Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel for the respondent,referred us to certain circumstances to support his contention that the relationship ofs 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 workmens 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. 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(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 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. 11 (f) (iii). Further, the definition of the expression dock worker and employer under S. 2 (b) and (c) respectively of the Act and the definition of dock employer and monthly worker in cls. 3 (g) and (k) respectively of the Scheme and the obligation cast under cl. 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 regarding payment by a registered employer to the Administrative Body of the gross wages due to the dock worker andthe 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.We are not inclined to agree with thishave already referred to the various circumstances which will show that there is no employment as such of the dock worker by the Board.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 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 we have held thatthe 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 workman against the Stevedores Association and its members who are parties to the Reference has to be considered and adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal, I. D. 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 remand proceedings.