CALCUTTA DOCK LABOUR BOARD Vs. SANDHYA MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the appellants maintained that the view taken both by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court as also the Division bench of the High Court is contrary to law and, therefore, cannot be sustained. The respondents had filed an appearance through counsel but no one participated in the hearing.

(3.) Section 1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act (39 of 1972) ('Act' for short), provides that the Act shall extend to ports. 'Port' has been defined in Section 2(n) of the Act. There can be no dispute that the Calcutta Port is covered by the Indian Ports Act, 1908. It is true that under one of the three schemes framed by the Calcutta Dock Labour Board gratuity was payable to Md. Safiur Rehman, but such gratuity must be taken to be covered by Section 4 of the Act, in the absence of any notification contemplated under Section 5. Section 5 authorises the appropriate Government by notification and subject to such conditions as may be specified in that notification to exempt, inter alia, any port to which the Act applies, from the operation of the provisions of the Act, if in the opinion of the appropriate Government the employees in the port are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefit not less favourable than the benefits conferred under the Act. Neither the Chief Judge nor the High Court has found that there has been a notification as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act in this case. It had also not been contended at any stage by the respondents that such. a notification had been made.