GROVER, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave from an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta made in reference No. 124 of 1966.
(2.) THE facts may be shortly stated. THE Calcutta Dock Labour Board is a body corporate, established under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 and includes equal number of members representing the Government, the Dock Workers and the Employers of Dock Workers and Shipping Companies. Schemes had been framed under section 4 of the said Act for representation of Dock Workers and Employer with the object of ensuring greater regularity of employment and regulating the employment of Dock workers in a Port whether registered or not. THE Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956 was notified on October 8, 1956 governing the terms and conditions of service of Registered Dock Workers. Another scheme called the Unregistered Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1957 was notified on June 29, 1957 governing the terms and conditions of Listed Workers. Seven Dock Workers had been detained under the Defence of India Rules. Five of whom were detained for more than one year and two for comparatively shorter period. It appears that one of the disputes arose because these workmen were not taken back by the Dock Labour Board. A notification dated September 29, 1966 was issued by the Central Government saying that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to (1) Calcutta Dock Labour Board, (2). The Master Stevedores' Association and (3) the Calcutta Stevedores' Association, Calcutta and their workmen and, therefore, a reference was being made under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The points on which reference was made were given in the schedule and were as follows: "1. Whether the demand for reinstatement of the following ex-workmen is justified, and if so to what relief, if any are they entitled: JUDGEMENT_216_3_1974Html1.htm 2. Whether the existing wages of monthly workers include an element of wages in respect of the weekly days of rest? If not, to what relief, if any, are they entitled? 3. Whether the demand for mooring allowance for Winchmen in addition to their present emoluments is justified? If so, to what relief are they entitled? 4. Whether slicemen and chamachias should be booked for any other type of work? If so, what should be the procedure and conditions for such booking?"
(3.) IT may be mentioned that two of the above workers, viz., Siddique Khan and S. K. Babu were allowed to join their duties on being released after a short period of detention and before removal of their names from the registers of the Board. We have been informed that the reinstatement of the other five workmen has also been made though subsequently. Before the Tribunal certain Preliminary Objections were raised on behalf of the Dock Labour Board and the Stevedores' Association. It had been urged that they were not employers of the workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act) or under the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956 and the other scheme of 1957 and therefore the reference was without Jurisdiction. The Dock Labour Board also raised a contention that it was a statutory Body set up for ensuring the regularity of employment of Dock Workers under the two Schemes of 1956 and 1957 and though the payment of wages was made from the Office of the Dock Labour Board, the funds were obtained from the various Firms who employed the labour and the expenses of the board were met by a levy realised from such employers. Therefore, the Dock Labour Board could not be said to be carrying on any industry within the meaning of the Act. The Tribunal was of the view that the Dock Labour Board though exercising many of the functions and powers of employers is not engaged in any industry with the object of earning profit. But after considering, certain other facts it was held that if the Dock Labour had any grievance there was no reason why the workers should not be able to raise a dispute under the Act and the Industrial Tribunal must be deemed to have jurisdiction when the appropriate Government had referred a dispute for adjudication. As regards the Stevecores' Association the Tribunal was of the view that although they might not be necessary parties so far as points 2, 3 and 4 were concerned yet they were proper parties and the reference could not be held to be bad due to that reason. As regards the reinstatement of the other five workmen, the Tribunal gave a direction that they should be taken back on the list or register within a month of the publication of the award, but they should be treated as on leave without pay for the period for which they were not assigned any job because of their detention or because of the order of the removal of their names from the registers. On the other issues the award was as follows: "(2) The existing wages of monthly workers include an element of wages in respect of the weekly days of rest in some cases, but not in all cases. Accordingly, the existing wages of the monthly workers are revised as indicated in the award with effect from the first of the calendar month next following the publication of the award. (3) The demand for mooring allowance for winchmen in addition to their present emoluments is not justified and the demand is rejected. (4) Slicemen and Chamachias wild be booked for other types of work, but when no work in salt ship is available they should be booked first to the Sulphur ships and Fertilizer ships if available, and thereafter as baggers in food ships, but while working as baggers they will be entitled to draw the wage scale attached to their own subcategories, subject to the proviso that when baggers work under an incentive piece-rate scheme, the slicemen and chamachias will share in the higher earnings only after the average earning per bagger has risen above their respective sub-category wages." ;