- (1.) This instant appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 27th March, 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge in C.S. No. 303 of 2005.
(2.) The appellant has taken several grounds in order to assail the impugned judgment. According to the appellant, the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the scope and purport of the provisions of the Calcutta Dock Clerical and Supervisory Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1970 framed under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. It has been specifically alleged that the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Scheme in its proper perspective and the claim of the present respondents are absolutely baseless and that the appellant is in no way liable to pay the amount along with interest as assessed by the Learned Single Bench. Referring to Regulation 35(1) it has been contended that every registered employer shall accept the obligations of the Scheme and Regulation 35(5)(i) requires the registered employer to make payment to the Executive Officer of the plaintiff Calcutta Dock Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in such a manner and at such time as directed by the said Board and the levy and other administrative charges would be payable in terms of clause 49 of the Scheme along with gross wages. Regarding 'daily workers', the said Regulation 35(5)(ii) also stipulates that a registered employer is to make payment as contribution to the 'Dock Clerical and Supervisory Workers Welfare Fund' under clause 52 of the Scheme. In the memo of appeal, it is also contended that Regulation 35(5)(iii) requires that the registered employer is to make payment to the Board, i.e. the monthly provident fund subscription recovered from the wages from the workers and the contribution by the registered employers thereon, repayment of provident fund loan and interest thereon because of maintaining the provident fund of the monthly workers, which should be defrayed by payments to the plaintiff Board in the manner as it would be fixed from time to time. The specific case of the appellant is such that they complied with all the requirements of Regulation 35 read with Regulation 49 which deals with payment of levy. There was no Scheme which contemplates that there would be an obligation regarding payments by a registered employer regarding any other demand for payment by the plaintiff and if anything is imposed upon them, it will be ultra vires the Scheme and the registered employers do not have any obligation to make payment, which is not included in the Scheme. The contention in the memo of appeal the finding of the learned Judge, that in the absence of the Board, generating funds for payment of the arrears of the revised wages or allowances in terms of Regulation 50 of the Scheme it becomes the primary responsibility of a registered employer to pay the said arrears of revised wages is completely based on a mis-interpretation of Regulation 50 of the Scheme. Ventilating its grievances, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the time of hearing, expressed all the grievances and submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court has to be set aside, since the Scheme does not permit any arrear of amount regarding wage hike. He contended by saying that learned Judge's finding is erroneous and cannot be sustained.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has argued that learned Trial Judge has taken care of all the relevant issues in its proper perspectives and has come to a correct conclusion, which does not warrant any interference. In other words, he simply contended that the impugned judgment is unimpeachable and is, therefore, required to be sustained.;