9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (8) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication claiming a sum of Rs. 77,06,281, as delayed wages payable to them and compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per head as against the Calcutta Dock Labour Board, the petitioner. Their case seems to be that a wage Revision Committee submitted a report revising the rate of wages of the different dock workers including the applicants which was accepted by the Government of India when the Government decided to implement the recommendations of the Committee with effect from 1.1.74 According to the applicants who happen to the signallers or junior mazdoors they were entitled to get the same wages as that of the senior mazdoors but unfortunately their pay was not equated with those of the senior mazdoors prior to 1.6.77. Accordingly, the applicants claimed the difference due to them for the period 1.1.74 to 31.5.77 which they claimed as delayed wages and which according to them on calculation would amount to Rs. 77,08,281/-. 2. The Calcutta Dock Labour Board filed a written objection in contesting the claim put forward by the dock workers in the said application. In this written objection, a preliminary objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of the application on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Board but went on further to allow the claim on its merits in part The authority held that each of the applicants is entitled to a sum of Rs, 39.85 per month from 11.74 to 31.5.77 which amounted to a sum of Rs 21,55,048.25 for all the applicants. So far as the claim for compensation is concerned, the authority held that each of the applicants was entitled to a sum of Rs. 300/- by way of compensation, though in the application they claimed only a sum of Rs. 25/- per head. The authority adjudged the total amount or compensation to be payable by the Board at Rs. 3,95,700/- so that the total amount awarded by the order against the Board was a sum of Rs, 25,50,748,26, That amount was directed to be deposited with the authority on or before 205.81 feeling aggrieved, the Calcutta Dock Labour Board has moved this court with the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the said order and in particular challenging the jurisdiction of the authority to entertain and allow such a claim as against the Board. The application was directed to be heard on notice to the respondents and such notice having been served in terms of the order of this Court dated May 18,1981 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the employer and the applicants are not its employees no claim under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act could be entertained as against the Board, (ii) the Board not being a factory or a Railway nor an industrial establishment, the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act can have no application so that the application as presented before the authority was not maintainable in law and (iii) the claim having been lodged beyond the period of 12 months from the date on which the payment of wages was due, even on the face of the application, such an application was clearly time barred. 8. All these objections were overruled by the authority. Having regard to the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of. Employment) Scheme, 1970, the authority held that though the registered dock workers are employed by the registered employers on allotment by the Board, yet when such employers cannot employ workers outside the Board's pool, when Board pays wages, gratuity, provident fund and leave salary to these workers though out of the fund realised from registered employers and when again it was the Board which holds disciplinary enquiry against such workers and takes disciplinary action against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised by the Board is concerned, that Is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vizagapattam Dock Workers referred to hereinbefore, the import whereof the authority had failed to appreciate. According to Mr. Chakraborty, the Bench decision of this Court in the case of A.C. Roy is not really on the point and in any event that was a decision based on the scheme framed in the year 1956 which is materially different from the scheme now in force, namely the 1970 Scheme. Strong reliance is placed by Mr. Chakraborty on a single Bench decision of this court in the case of Promode Ranjan Dutta v. Union of India 1977 (1) CLJ 48 which was also cited before the authority. In challenging the decision of the authority on the point of limitation, it has been contended by Mr. Chakraborty that when there is nothing on record to show that the Board was not pressing the objection on the point of limitation which was categorically raised as a defence in the written objection and was thoroughly argued as a preliminary issue before the authority, it was improper for the authority to presume that the Board was not serious in pressing the said objection. Such a pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the dock workers. The Scheme only invests those functions on the Board with the object of ensuring greater regularity of employment of the dock workers and to secure availability to adequate number of dock workers for the efficient performance of the dock work We are, therefore, of the view that the authority was not correct in distinguishing the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court which concludes the point in favour of he petitioner Board. so far as the decision of this Court in the case of A. C. Roy (supra) is concerned, the authority failed to appreciate that there this court was not called upon to consider a question as specifically raised now before us or as it was raised before the authority. In that case, the question arose whether for fixation of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the stevedores A.C. Roy Company Limited or the Administrative Officer of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board was the employer in respect of the dock workers. It was held that it was registered stevedore who is the employer. There was an incidental observation in that decision based upon cause 37(2) of the 1956 Scheme that a registered dock worker under the reserve pool is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch a defence in their written objection but pressed it for consideration as a preliminary issue as framed by the authority itself. The plea of limitation being a plea of statutory bar the authority was equally in error in thinking that in morality a public authority like the Board is not entitled to raise such a plea. If the statute had prescribed a particular period of limitation for entertaining a particular claim it is wholly immaterial whether such a' plea should or should not be raised having regard to the moral standard. But even then though we cannot uphold the decision of the authority on this point, we cannot decide it finally because the second proviso to subsection (2) of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act vests the authority with the power to condone the delay if sufficient cause be made out for the same. Such cause in the present case was pleaded but was not considered by the authority so that if the application is otherwise maintainable the matter is to go back for reconsideration of the objection as to limitation in the light of the cause shown for the delay. So far as the other point raised before the authority is concerned, under section 1 (4) of the Paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
