Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of a claim for bonus made by two unions of dock workers at Visakhapatnam Port for the accounting years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. The Central Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, impleading the Vizagapatam Dock Labour Board, the Visakhapatnam Stevedores Association, individual stevedores, and the workers’ unions. The unions demanded bonus at specified per-ton rates, asserting that stevedores at other major ports had agreed to similar payments and that the stevedores at Visakhapatnam were no different. The Stevedores Association contended that the Board was the employer of the dock workers because the Board registered, allocated, and controlled the labour force, and that the stevedores were merely users of labour. The Board argued that it was a statutory body constituted under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948, and the Vizagapatam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1959, and that it did not carry on any industry; the stevedores, being the registered employers who actually utilised the labour, were the real employers. The Industrial Tribunal held that the Board was the employer and liable to pay the bonus, fixing the rate at 13 paise per ton for 1964-65, 14 paise for 1965-66, and 15 paise for 1966-67. On appeal by special leave, the Supreme Court examined the nature of the claim and the statutory framework. The Court found that the unions had specifically directed their claim against the Stevedores Association and its members; therefore, the Tribunal could not convert it into a claim against the Board. Analysing the Act and Scheme, the Court held that the Board is an autonomous body entrusted with administration of the scheme to ensure regular employment for dock workers. The scheme provides that registered employers are allocated workers, who work under the employers’ control and supervision; the employers pay wages to the Board, which disburses them as agent. The Court distinguished Kirlosker Oil Engines v. Hanmant Laxman Bihawej and disapproved C.V.A. Hydross & Son v. Joseph Senjon, applying Gymkhana Club Union v. Management to hold that the Board does not carry on an industry. Consequently, the Industrial Disputes Act did not apply, and the Board could not be made liable for bonus. The appeal was allowed, and the award against the Board was set aside.
Headnote
A) Labour Law – Employer-Employee Relationship – Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948, Vizagapatam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1959 – The Dock Labour Board is a statutory body charged with administering the scheme; the registered employers (stevedores) to whom workers are allotted are the real employers – The Board’s functions of registration, allocation, wage fixation, payment of compensation, and disciplinary control do not constitute employer-employee relationship – Held, the Board cannot be considered the employer of dock workers for purposes of bonus claim. B) Labour Law – Bonus – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Liability for bonus rests only on the actual employer carrying on an industry – The Board does not carry on any industry and is not the employer – Held, the Industrial Tribunal erred in directing the Board to pay bonus because the claim was specifically made against the Stevedores Association and its members. C) Labour Law – Definition of Industry – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – A statutory body performing regulatory and administrative functions under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 does not carry on an industry – Held, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted to the Dock Labour Board’s operations.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Vizagapatam Dock Labour Board is the employer of dock workers and liable to pay bonus for the years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67; whether the Board carries on an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Supreme Court set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing the Vizagapatam Dock Labour Board to pay bonus. The Court held that the claim for bonus was made against the Stevedores Association and its members, and the Tribunal erred in making the Board liable. Further held that the Board is not the employer of dock workers and does not carry on an industry; therefore, the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Statutory dock labour board under Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act
- 1948 is not the employer of dock workers
- registered stevedores are the actual employers
- dock labour board does not carry on an industry and Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 does not apply
- claim for bonus must be made against the actual employer
- tribunal cannot impose liability on a party not claimed against by the workmen
