Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J. - (1.) This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 28th December, 1989 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, West Bengal, in Claim Case No. 1981 of 1987. The Calcutta Dock Labour Board was not a party in the said proceeding before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's compensation inasmuch as the claim for compensation was filed by one Wabid Mia against his employer A, C. Roy & Co. (Private) Ltd., and the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation had awarded a sum of Rs. 17,659.30p. as compensation of the injury sustained on his right eye. with partial loss of vision causing partial disablement to the extent of 30%, M/s. A. C. Roy & Co. (P) Ltd. against whom the claim was filed and against whom order was passed by the Workmen's Compensation Court did not prefer any appeal. On the contrary this application for leave to appeal bad been filed by the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. It was stated in the application for leave to appeal that the Calcutta Dock Labour Board is authorised by M/s. A. C. Roy & Co. (P) Ltd. and other stevedores who are registered employer to contest on its behalf the claim case in the Court of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, and pursuant to that agreement the Calcutta Dock Labour Board was under the obligation to pay the compensation money pursuant to an award and as in this case the award has been made and pursuant to that agreement, money has to be paid by the Calcutta Dock Labour Board, the Calcutta Dock Labour Board should be allowed to prefer an appeal. The Calcutta Dock Labour Board was not a party in the proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The right of the workmen for compensation can only be enforced against the employer and the "employer" has been defined in Section 2(e) of the said Act which reads as follows:- "2(e) "employer" includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship means such other person while the workman is working for him." The liability to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a statutory liability. There is no privity of contract between Wahid Mia and the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. There is no statutory provision Shat all the workmen appointed by the stevedores would automatically become the employee of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. Now the question is whether Calcutta Dock Labour Board would be permitted to prefer an appeal against the award made against M/s. A. C. Roy & Co. (P) Ltd. against whom an award has been passed. M/s. A. C. Roy & Co, have not preferred any appeal.
(2.) Mr. Guha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board drew our attention to the provisions of Section 5-A(2) of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 wherein it is provided that every such board shall be a body corporate with the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract and may, by that name, sue and be sued. Further a copy of the agreement was produced before this Court. In that agreement it was provided that the Calcutta Dock Labour Board shall act for and on behalf of the constituent members and it was further stated that all the constituent members have granted power of attorney to conduct cases for and on behalf of the constituent members on She strength of the power of attorney given by all the constituent members including M/s.A.C. Roy & Co. (P) Ltd. and as such leave should be granted to prosecute this appeal.
(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 referred to a Division Bench judgment this Court in the case of Calcutta Dock Labour Board v. The Payment of Wages Authority & Ors. reported in 1982 Lab IC 657, wherein it was held by the Division Bench that the Dock Labour Board is constituted under Section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 whose function is to administer the scheme framed under the Act with a view to ensure greater regularity of employment and for regulating the employment of dock workers in relation to their employer and registration of both the dock workers and their employers. The term 'employer' in relation to a dock worker has been defined in Section 2(e) of She Act So mean the person by whom he is employed or to be employed. Neither under the Act nor under the Scheme a dock worker, who may be registered as such under the Scheme, is a worker of the Board. Such workers are really employed by the stevedores who really stand in the position of employer in relation to dock workers employed by him. Therefore, the Board cannot be considered to be She employer in respect of the dock workers.;