9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal acted illegally and without jurisdiction in making the Board liable for payment of bonus. 2. Whether there exists an employer-employee relationship between the Board and the Dock Labour workmen. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Tribunal's Jurisdiction and Liability of the Board: The appeal, by special leave, by the Vizagapatam Dock Labour Board (the Board), contests the Industrial Tribunal's award that directed the Board to pay bonus to dock workers for the years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67. The Central Government had referred the question of bonus payment to the Tribunal, which included the Board, the Visakhapatnam Stevedores Association, individual Stevedores, and two Unions representing workers. The Unions claimed that the work at Visakhapatnam Port was similar to that at other major ports where settlements on bonus had been reached. They argued that since the Board and the Stevedores Association were governed by the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1948 and the Vizagapatam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1959, their claim for bonus was justified. The Stevedores Association contested the claim, asserting that the dock workers were employees of the Board, not the Stevedores, and thus, no claim for bonus could be made against them. The Board also contested, stating that it was a statutory body and not an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Stevedores were the actual employers responsible for the bonus. The Tribunal, however, held the Board liable for the bonus, considering it the employer of the dock workers. It awarded bonus rates of 13 paise per ton for 1964-65, 14 paise per ton for 1965-66, and 15 paise per ton for 1966-67. The Supreme Court found that the claim for bonus was primarily directed against the Stevedores Association and its members. The Tribunal was not justified in making the Board liable for the payment of bonus, as the claim was against the Stevedores. The Tribunal's understanding that the claim was against the Stevedores is evident from its own statements. 2. Employer-Employee Relationship: The second contention was whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between the Board and the dock workers. The Supreme Court examined the Act and the Scheme, which regulate the employment of dock workers. The Board maintains a Dock Labour pool, supplies labor to the Stevedores, and collects wages from them to pay the workers. The Board also handles disciplinary actions and fixes wages. The Court noted that the Board's primary responsibility is the administration of the Scheme, ensuring regular employment and adequate labor supply. The Stevedores are the actual employers who control and supervise the dock workers. The Board acts as an agent for the registered employers when allocating workers and handling payments. The Court concluded that the Board could not be considered the employer of the dock workers. The relationship of master and servant exists between the Stevedores and the dock workers. The Board's functions under the Scheme do not establish an employer-employee relationship. The Court also considered whether the Board could be considered an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. It concluded that the Board does not carry on an industry, and thus, the Tribunal's direction for the Board to pay the bonus was incorrect. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the Industrial Tribunal's order dated May 24, 1968, and remanded I.D. No. 10 of 1967 to the Tribunal for disposal according to law. The Tribunal is to consider the claim against the Stevedores Association and its members, excluding the Dock Labour Board from the proceedings. The appeal was allowed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
