CALCUTTA PORT SHARMIK UNION versus CALCUTTA RIVER TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1034 · Decided: 13-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
CALCUTIA PORT SHARMIK UNION 
v. 
CALCUTIA RIVER TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act; 1948: Section 
2(b)-'Dock worker'-Whether includes Dargeman-'Dandees' and 
'Majhis'-Whether bargeman entitled to receive wages and allowances 
recommended by Wage Board. 
· 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 7B and JO ( JA)-
Tribunal-Reference to presumption that there is a dispute between 
parties-Courts exercising judicial review should sustain as far as possi-
ble the awards of tribunals-Whether bargeman entitled to wages 
recommended by Wage Board-Tribunal examining decision of Wage 
D Board whether 'bargemen' are 'workmen'-Whether valid. 
The Government of India set up a Wage Board for the port and 
; 
dock workers at major ports on November 13, 1964(1) to determine the 
categories of employees who should be brought within the scope of 
proposed wage fixation, and (2) to work out a wage structure for those 
E employees on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the Government. 
The Wage Board submitted its final report on November 29, 1969. The 
Wage Board did not choose to make any recommendation in respect of 
bargemen, i.e., Dandees and Majhis at the Port of Calcutta. According 
to the Wage Board, the bargemen were engaged more in the transport 
of cargo rather than its handling and they therefore did not tit in with 
F the definition of 'dock worker'. Thereupon, the bargemen raised an 
industrial dispute claiming the benefit of the Wage Board recommenda-
tions. Accordim!ly, the Central Government on August 22, 1970 con-
stituted a National Tribunal at Calcutta for adjudication whether the 
recommendations of the Wage Board were applicable to the bargemen, 
and if not, to what relief with regard to wages and allowances were they 
G entitled. 
The National Tribunal held that the bargemen were entitled to be 
paid wages and allowances at the rates of wages recommended by the 
Wage Board on the ground that the bargemen came within the meaning 
of the definition of 'dock worker' and thus the recommendations of the 
H Wage Board were applicable to them, and alternatively, on the ground 
1034 
J 
CAL. PORT UNION v. CAL. TPT. ASSCN. 
1035. 
that they were entitled to the same rates of wages and allowances even 
independently, having regard to the financial capacity of the manage-
ment .and au other relevant considerations governing the determination 
of.the wages. 
A 
Aggrieved by the award of the National Tribunal, the manage-
ments tiled two, writ petitions before the High Court at Calcutta ques-
B 
tioning its validity on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the 
reference. 
c 
The learned Single Judge observed: (1) that the scope of the refer-
ence was to find out from the report of the Central Wage Board itself. 
whether the recommendations were applicable to the bargemen or not, 
and it was not for the National Tribunal to criticise the report of the 
Central Wage Board and to establish that the bargemen were dock 
workers within the meaning of the Act; (2) the National Tribunal, in a 
ronnd about way, made the· recommendations of the Central Wage 
Board applicable to the bargemen although apparently the recommenda-
tions were not applicable to them, and (3) the National Tribunal having o 
held that the recommendations of the Ce~tral Wage Board were applic-
able to the bargemen, there was no scope for it to decide independently 
the pay strncture of the bargemen. The learned Single Judge accord-
ingly quashed the award as beyond the jurisdiction .of the National 
Tribunal. 
The Division Bench, on appeal, agreed with the Single Judge and 
fnrther held that the National Tribunal had failed to fix the wages in 
accordance with the settled principles. 
Allowing the appeal, it was, 
HELD: (1) The object of enacting the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
and of making provisiontherein to refer disputes to tribunals for settle-
ment is to bring about industrial peace. Whenever a reference is made 
E 
F 
by a Government to an industrial tribunal it has to be presumed ordi-
narily that there is a genuine industrial dispute between the parties 
which requires to be. resolved by adjudication. In all such cases an 
G 
attempt shonld be made by Courts exercising power of judicial review 
to snstain as far as possible the awards made by industrial tribunals 
instead of picking holes here and there in th• awards on trivial poi

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