RAMAN C AMIN Vs. DOCK LABOUR BOARD VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE points that arise for consideration in these cases are - (i) Whether the labourers employed in connection with the sampling work fall within the definition of "dock workers" ? (ii) Whether the action of the Dock Labour Board, Visakhapatnam in collecting charges for 5 dock workers on the basis of notional employment of dock workers is unjust and illegal ?

(2.) VISAKHAPATNAM Port Trust is one of the Major Port Trusts in India. It is governed by the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act. The import and export of the goods take place from that port. While exporting and importing the goods, for purposes of quality control, samples of the goods are taken and for that purpose, Samplers, hereinafter referred to as 'inspecting agencies' are entrusted with the work of collecting the samples of the goods in the process of export and import and for their analysis as per Indian Standard Specifications. The labourers who work on the port are governed by the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1948, (for short 'the Act') Under Section 5 of the Act, the Dock Labour Board has been established by the Government which is a Corporate Body. Section 3 of the said Act provides for framing of the scheme for ensuring regular employment of the workers. The inspection agencies have to get themselves registered under the Act and are obliged to engage dock labourers called dock workers as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Act, provided by the Dock labour Board. The Inspection agencies have to pay Rs. 170/- per day per each dock worker. The inspection agencies having engaged the dock workers for a considerable period disputed the obligation to engage the dock workers provided by the Dock Labour Board on the ground that the workers are not collecting samples properly which they are supposed to collect from 8 to 10 different heaps. It is stated that they are collecting samples only from one heap in order to finish their work quickly which ultimately affects the analysis process. It is also stated that engaging the dock workers would be expensive and having regard to the remuneration which they received for the analysis work it has become impossible for them to carry on their work. It is at no other port in India inspection agencies are forced to employ dock workers supplied by the Board and it is further stated there is no provision of law authorising the Board to command the inspection agencies to engage the dock workers supplied by it only. It is also stated that after the installation of automatic sampling plants, there is no need to engage any dock labour but the inspection agencies are nationally charged for five dock workers which is illegal. Therefore, challenging the action of the Dock Labour Board, the inspection agencies filed writ petitions Nos. 13211/84. 4895 of 1985 and 5184/85.

(3.) IN the counter affidavits filed by the Labour Officer of the Dock Labour Board, it is stated that the petitioners applied for listing as employers under Clause 15 (2) of the Vishakhapatnam Unregistered Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme 1968 (for short 'the Scheme' ). The Act has been enacted to regulate the employment of dock workers. The category of sampling workers is included in the definition of 'dock worker'. Before publishing the scheme in the official gazette, objections and suggestions were invited and after considering the same, the scheme was finalised which came into force after its publication in the gazette on 11th January 1969. The petitioners applied to listing themselves as "listed employers" of the Board and recommended that the workers who were in their employment at that time be included in the listed workers. These terms have been defined in Clauses 3 (j) and 3 (k) of the scheme. After the inclusion of the workers in the listed employers, they continued to employ them for sampling purposes. It is only after about 15 years of following this scheme the petitioners have now raised objection. The allegation that the workers are not carrying out the work properly is denied. It is added that no complaint was ever made with reference to functioning of the workers by the petitioners with the Board. It is stated that the engagement of dock workers for sampling purposes in other ports is not relevant as implementation of the scheme in different ports depends upon the conditions in that particular port. It is stated that sampling plant was not installed when the dispute was raised. But keeping in view the proposal to mechanise the sampling operation by installing the automatic sampling plant, the Board took a decision to collect 0-17 paise per tonne from the inspection agencies. The Mineral and Metal Trading Corporation (M. M. T. C.) requested to keep the resolution of the Board in abeyance for three weeks till 18the September 1984 for getting clearance from its Head Office; but in the meanwhile the sampling workers filed W. P. No. 13199/84 and the proposal was stayed by the High Court in W. P. M. P. No. 17305/84 on 19the September 1984. In the said proceedings, the petitioners admitted that even after the automatic sampling unit is installed, there would be necessity of one or two persons to do manual work. The Chairman of the Dock Labour Board decided to make enquiries from the petitioners and other sampling employers and the Mineral and Metal Trading Corporation as to whether there would be any element of manual work at the sampling plant. After enquiry it was reported that atleast five sampling workers would be necessary and that the sampling employers were engaging casual labourers for the said work. Though the sampling employers claimed that they were employing their monthly staff, it was also found to be incorrect. They are bound to engage listed workers as per the scheme which is binding on the employer as well as on the workers. It is stated that on 19th March 1985 the representative of the sampling employers agreed in principle to employ dock workers so long as the sampling operations are not fully mechanised. On 25th March 1985, a meeting was convened at the request of M. M. T. C. in which it was proposed that the sampling employers be exempted from the actual employment of dock workers and they would nationally engage listed workers until such time the screening equipment was installed by 21st April 1985. It was decided that a minimum of 5 men would be employed in a shift and this was also ratified by the Board on 27th April 1985. That arrangement would be operative till 21st April 1985 or till such time automatic sampling plant was fully commissioned. It was also resolved to obtain technical opinion of the Chief Mechanical Engineer. V. P. T. with regard to the element of manual work at the sampling plant after it is fully commissioned. The sampling operations were fully mechanised by 31st May 1985. The Plant Manger of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust stated that after mechanisation there would be manual work for 5 men, two for collection of samples, two for loading into carts and one for general miscellaneous work like cleaning. The Board also obtained the opinion of the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust who in his letter dated 19th June 1985, stated that even when the sampling plant was in operation, the labour employment would be given per shift. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.