CALCUTTA DOCK LABOUR BOARD AND ANR. versus SMT. SANDHYA MITRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 11-02-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
826 
CALCUTTA DOCK LABOUR BOARD AND ANR. 
v. 
SMT. SANDHYA MITRA AND ORS. 
February JI, 1985 
[P.N. BHAGWATI AND RANGANTH MisRA, JJ.] 
Liability to attachment in executioti of a decree of the Court-Whether 
gratuity payable to a lt orkman employed under the Calcutta Dock Labour Board 
is attachable for satisfac1ion of a decree of tfle Court-Payment of Gratuity Act 
1972, sections 1(3), 2(n) 4, 5, I 3 and 14 read with Rule 2 of the Gratuity 
Ru/.,, f 972 and sections 6(g), 8 and 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act III 
of 1908). 
Md, Safiur Rehman was a dock worker and gratuity was payable to him 
under one of the three prevailing schemes of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. 
Respondent No. 1 filed a suit before the Court of .Small Causes at Calcutta 
asking for recoxery of a sum of money against the widow and son of the 
said Md. Safiur Rehman ofter his death and prayed for attachment of the 
gratuity payable to the said workman. The Court made an order and called 
upon the Board to withhold payment of the amount, whereupon the Board 
pointed out to Court that gratuity was not liable to attachment. The Chief 
Judge of the Court of Small Causes examined the objection against attach· 
ment and overruled the same. In appeal by the a·ppellants a Division Bench 
of the High Court examined the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity 
Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, and holding (a) clause (g) of section 6 
of the Civil Procedure Code does not cover the gratuity payble by the Board 
to a registered dock worker since subsequent amendment of this clatise have 
not been adopted and made applicable by 
the High Court to Presidency 
Small Causes Court; and (b) Rule 9 of the Gratuity Rules which purports 
to exempt gr<1.tUiLy from attachment, not having been made by the Central 
Government on powers delegated by the Parliament under the Dock Workers 
(R<J!Ulation of Employment) Act, but by the Board on sub-delegation of 
powers under the scheme cannot override the legal right of the plaintiff, and 
dismissed the appeal. Hence the·appeal by special leave. 
AIJowing the appeal, the Court, 
< 
' 
~ 
-
.. 
CALCUTTA LAB. BOAl!.D v. s. MITRA (Ranganath Misra, J.) 
827 
HELD : I. The preamble of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 
clearly indicates the legislative intention that the Act sought to provide a 
scheme for payment of gratuity to all employees engaged in, inter-alia 
port.~ 
and under th is Act gratuity was payable to workers like Md. Safiur Reb-
man. Io view of the provisions in section 1 (3) of the Act gratuity must be 
taken to be coverdd by section 4 of the Act, in the absence of any notifica-
tiOo contemplated under section 5. Section 14 has also overriding effect and 
section 13 g ivcs total immunity to gratuity from attachment. The gratuity 
which was payable to him squarcdy came within the purview of the Act 
and, therefore, became entitled to immunity under section 18 thereof . 
(830D-E] 
2. The immunity under section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 
itself being adequate the Court applied non-llquet on the two issues~ namely, 
(a) consideration of the subsequent event of the amendment of section 13 of 
the Gratuity Act by Central Act 25 of 1984 with effect from July !st, 1914; 
and (b) the necessity for remaking of the Calcutta High Court's earlier order 
under section 8 of the Civil Procedure Code extending the provisions 
of 
section 60 of the Cocte to the Small Causes Court consequent to section 97 
of the Amending Act of 1976. [830H; 83 lA·B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 34S of 
1985. 
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
theSth October, 1983 of the Calcutta High Court at Calcutta in Civil 
Order No. 971 of 1983. 
D. N. Mukherjee for the Appellants. 
Mahabir Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. Special leave granted. 
The short question which falls for decision in this appeal is 
whether gratuity payable lo a workman employed under the Calcutta 
i 
Dock Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') is attachable 
for satisfaction of a decree of the Court. Md. Safiur Rehman was a 
dock worker and gratuity was payable to him under one of the three 
prevailing schemes of the Board. Respondent I filed a suit before 
the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta asking for recovery of a sum 
of money against the widow and son of the said Md. Safiur Rehman 
> 
after his death and prayed for att

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.