VIZAGAPATAM DOCK LABOUR BOARD versus STEVEDORES ASSOCIATION, VISHAKHAPATNAM & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 303 · Decided: 10-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
VIZAGAPATAM DOCK LABOUR BOARD 
v. 
STEVEDORES ASSOCIATION, VISHAKHAPATNAM & ORS. 
September I 0, 1969 
[J. M. SHELAT AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Dock WorkRrs Regulation of Emp:oymerll Act, 1948-Vizakhapatnam 
Dock Workers (Reg11/atio11 of Employment) Scheme, 1959-Dock Labour 
Board if employ.er-Board i/1 carries on ''industry"-lndtL'ifrial Disputes 
Act, 1947. 
The claim for bonus of the Dock Board 
Workers 
employed at 
Vizakhapatnam was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. 
The parties to 
the reference included the Vizagapatnam Dock Labour Board (the appel-
lant), the Stevedores Association, 
and two 
Unions 
representing 
the 
workers. 
The Industrial Tribunal after referring to the nature of the 
duties performed by the Board as well as the Stevedores Association and 
its members and their relationships with the Dock Labour Board 
held 
that it was the Board that was the employer of the dock workers and 
that the Board was liable for meeting the claim tor bonus. 
The Board 
in appeal to this Court, contended, that (i) it was not liable for the 
payment of bonus when the claim of the workers was against the Stevedores 
Assuciation and its members; and (ii) having regard to the provisions of 
the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act (9 of 1948), and 
the Vizagapatnam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 
1959 and the functions dischar~et..1 hy the Board there was no 
employer-
emplo~e relationship bet\\'een the Board and the workmen, and -as such 
the Board could he made liable for the claim. 
Accepting the contentions, 
this Court, 
HELD : {i) Having regard to the nature of the claim and the basis 
on which the tribunal itself proceeded, 
the claim for honus was made. 
by the unions specifically against the Stevedores Association and its mem-
bers and, as such, the tribunal was not justified in making the Board 
liable. 
(ii) The Board cannot he considered to be the employer of the Dock 
Labour Workmen. From the provisior< of Dock Workers (Regulation of 
Employment) Act and the Vizagapatnam Dock Workors (Regulation of 
Employment) Scheme, it is evident that the Board is a statutory body 
charged with the duty of administering the. scheme, the object of which 
is to ensure that greater regularity of emnloymcnt for dock workers nre 
available for the efficient performance of dock work. 
The Board is an 
autonomous body, competent to llctermine 
and 
pre~cribe the 
wages, 
allowances and other conditions of service of the dock workers. The pur-
port of the Scheme is that the entire bodv of workers should be under the 
Control and supervision of the Board. The registered employers are allo-
cated monthly workers by the Administrativt. Body and the Administrative 
Body supp1ies whenever necessary, the lahour force to the 
Stevedores 
from the Reserve Poo1. 
The workmen who are allotted to the registered 
employers are to. do the work under the control and supervision of the 
registered employers and to act under their directions. The registered 
employers pay the wages due to the worke•s to the Administrative Body 
and the latter. in turn, a• agent of the registered employers, 
pay them 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 2 S.C.R. 
over to the concerned \\'Orkmen. 
The 
re~istered employer· to 
whom 
A 
the lahour force is allotted hv the Board is the employer whose work 
to them. The functions of the Board such as recruitment and registration 
of -the dock lahour for1.e, fixation of wages and dearness allowance, pay-
n1cnt of \\·orkn1en's compensation, taking of discipttnary action and pro .. 
hibition against employment of workers who 
\Vere not registered 
with 
th~ Bonn.I. do not establish a relationship of employer and employee 
hctwcen the Board and the dock labour. Further, the Board functioning 
B 
un<ler the Act :1nd the Scheme cannot be said to carry on any industry 
so as to :1ttract the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
As a 
clain1 for any type of bonus can. t'le met only from the actual employer 
in respect of nnv in<lustrv and as the Board is neither the employer nor 
carries on any industry the Tribunal \\'3S wrong in directing the Board 
to pay Bonus for the vears in question. (316 B-E: G-H; 320 C] 
Gy111kha11a C/11h Union v. 
Al1111t1_~e11H'11t, [1968) l S.C.R. 742. 752. 
C 
applied. 
A. C. Rny & Co. Lui. v. '/'a.1'/im, 71 C.W.N. 531, referred to. 
Kir/osk£•r Oil Engines v. Han111a11t La:rinan Biht1u·ej, [1963) 3 S.C.R. 
5l4, diMinguishcd. 
C. V. 

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