Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Legal Controversy :

18. Mr. Singhvi, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, urged that the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal/Industrial Court in these three cases, that the complaint under the ULP Act was untenable as neither the Registered Employer, nor the Security Guards Board was the 'Employer' of the Security Guards, is erroneous in law and arises out of misconception of the position in law. He referred in extenso to the detailed provisions of the Security Guards Act and Security Guards Scheme. He relied on the Visakhapatnam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme framed under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 and contended that the provisions of the Security Guards Act and Security Guards Scheme were borrowed from the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 and the Scheme thereunder, which were in turn based upon the provisions under the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Scheme framed under the Dock Worker (Regulation of Employment) Act. He further contended that the provision of the Dock Workers Schemes were, in turn, borrowed from and were substantially ad idem with the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme framed under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) (Amendment) Order 1977 I, which operates in England. After having invited my attention to the three Schemes and the three Parent Acts. Mr. Singhvi then urged that the Supreme Court has decided the issue of the existence of the employer-employee relationship in the case of Vizagapatnam Dock Labour Board v. Stevedores Association, Visakhapatnam and Ors. under the Visakhapatnam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1959 (hereinafter called as 'Visakhapatnam Dock Workers Scheme,). He urged that, in a parallel provision of law the Supreme Court has expressed its view that under the provisions of the Scheme a contractual relationship of employer-employee was to be found between the registered employers and the Pool Workers. Hence, the same reasoning should follow while interpreting the provisions of the Security Guards Act and the Security Guards Scheme, is the submission of the learned Advocate. Though, at first blush, the argument seems attractive, upon careful scrutiny, I am unable to accept this contention, for reasons which follow.

19. The mainstay of the argument of Mr. Singhvi is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vizagapatnam Dock Labour Board v. Stevedores Association. Visakhapatnam & Ors. . The contention of Mr. Singhvi that the Visakhapatnam Dock Workers. (Regulation of Employment Scheme and the Security Guards Scheme are similar in material aspects, is only partly true. Upon a comparison of the two Schemes. I am satisfied that there is substantial dissimilarity on several material aspects. It is unnecessary for me to carry out a detailed exercise of comparison of the provisions of Visakhapatnam Dock Workers Scheme and the provisions of the Security Guards Scheme, since the exercise has been carried out already in the reported judgment of this Court in Messrs Tradesvel Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). At this stage, it would be enough only to highlight the material distinctions in the two schemes pointed out by Mr. Rele on behalf of the registered employer based upon which it was contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vizagapatnam Dock Labour Board was distinguishable and could not be said to have concluded the controversy in the present case.

21. Though some of these features are found in the Security Guards Scheme also, the similarity stops there. In the Visakhapatnam Dock Workers Scheme the administration of the Scheme is not vested solely in the Statutory Board known as Dock Labour Board. Certain matters such as disbursement of wages, etc., are entrusted to another body known as 'Administrative Body' and other factions are vested in the Dock Labour Board. It happened that the Administrative Body was the local Stevedores Association of the registered employees. Turning to the facts in the case before the Supreme Court in Vizagapatnam, (supra), it appears that a demand for payment of bonus for the years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 was preferred on behalf of the registered Dock Labour by their respective Unions. Interestingly, this demand was preferred only against the Stevedores Association and was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Before the Industrial Tribunal also, by a detailed statement of case filed by the Union appearing on behalf of the registered Dock Labours, the claim for bonus was made only against the Stevedores Association. Though the trial could have proceeded on the footing that the demand for Bonus had to be met only by the Stevedores Association, the Tribunal held that the Dock Labour Board was liable for payment of bonus. This Award of the Industrial Tribunal was challenged in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has formulated in paragraph 7 of the judgment the two issues canvassed by the learned Attorney General, on behalf of the Dock Labour Board. The first, that the Tribunal has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in making the Board liable for payment of bonus when the claim of the workmen for such payment was only against the Stevedores Association and its members and, the second, that having due regard to the provisions of the Act and the Scheme and the functions discharged by the Board, the Tribunal should have held that there was no employer-employee relationship between the Board and the Dock Labour and as such the Board could not be made liable for the claim. Analysing the pleadings before the Tribunal, the Supreme Court had no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the claim for bonus had been made only against the Stevedores Association and, therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in holding the Dock Labour Board liable for payment of bonus. Though this finding could have really concluded in appeal, the Supreme Court went on to decide the second question as to whether the Board could be considered the employer of the Dock Labour. After detailed consideration of the provisions of the Visakhapatnam Dock Workers Scheme, the Supreme Court reached the conclusion that, despite prerogative powers of deployment, recruitment, disciplinary powers including the right of de-registering the Dock Labour, the Dock Labour Board could not be considered to be the employer of the Dock Labour Workers. The Supreme Court formulated its conclusion in paragraph 23 thus :

"We have rather elaborately gone into the various matters dealt with under the Act and the Scheme as that will give a true picture of the nature of the functions and duties that the Board discharges in respect of the work carried on in the port. From the various provisions of the Act and the Scheme referred to above, 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 greater regularity of employment for dock workers and to secure that an adequate number of dock workers are available for the efficient performance of dock work. The Board is an autonomous body, competent to determine and prescribe the wages, allowances and other conditions of service of the Dock Workers. The purport of the scheme is that the entire body of worker should be under the control and supervision of the Board. The registered employers are allocated monthly workers by the Administrative Body and the Administrative Body supplies, whenever necessary, the labour force to Stevedores from the Reserve Pool. 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 workers to the Administrative Body and the latter in turn, as agent of the registered employers, pay them over to the concerned workmen".