MASTER STEVEDORES ASSOCIATION Vs. CALCUTTA DOCK LABOUR BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Rule was issued on 13th May, 1988 after the appearance of all the respondents. The Rule is taken up for hearing as agreed by all the parties concerned. The writ petitioners namely the Master Stevedores' Association and the Calcutta Master Stevedores' Association have filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents and each of them, their servants and agents to forthwith withdraw, revoke, recall and/or cancel the resolutions bearing Nos. 62 and 65, dated September 6, 1985 and September 21, 1985 respectively and the approval granted by the Central Government and for permanent injunction to restrain the Respondents and/or their men and agents from giving effect to or taking any steps in terms of, or pursuant to the said Resolution Nos. 62 and 65 as aforesaid and the letter of approval, dated 21st November, 1985 issued by the Central Government and for other consequential reliefs in the manner as stated in the writ petition itself. The petitioners have emphasized their case in paragraphs 16 to 19 of the writ application as to the impugned circulars and the letter, dated November 21, 1985. To appreciate the case of the petitioners, the said Resolution Nos. 62 and 65 and the letter, dated November 21, 1985 are required to be considered. The said resolutions are quoted hereinbelow.

(2.) It is stated that the Respondent No.. 1 Dock Labour Board passed the Resolution Nos. 62 and 65 inspite objections raised by the representatives of the registered employers sent at the said meeting. The said Resolution Nos. 62 and 65 are a allows:

(3.) In order to challenge the two aforesaid Resolution Nos. 62 and 65 and the D.O. Letter, dated 21st November, 1985 the writ petitioners have made out a case that both the registered Associations of Stevedores are duly registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Trade Union Act, 1926. They are carrying on the business as Stevedores of the Port of Calcutta. It is stated that for regulating the employment of dock workers in the country the Parliament promulgated the Dock Workers (Regulation and Employment) Act, 1948. In accordance with the powers conferral by the Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act in or about 1970 the Central Government framed Calcutta Dock Workers' (Regulation and Employment) Scheme, 1970 (superseding the earlier schemes in this regard, the Calcutta Dock Clerical and Supervisory Workers' (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1970 and the Calcutta Shipping and Painting Workers' (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1970. The petitioners allege that as per the scheme the "Board" means the Calcutta Dock Labour Board constituted under the Dock Workers' (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 and "dock employer" means the person by whom a dock worker was employed or is to be employed; and the "registered employer" means an employer whose name is, for the time being entered in the employer's register. According to the writ petitioners, a perusal of the provisions of the said Act and/or the Rules and/or the Schemes would make it apparent that the Respondent No. 1 Calcutta Dock Labour Board is required to administer on behalf of the Central Government, the said Schemes for the Port or Ports for which the Respondent No. 1 has been established. The petitioners go on submitting that it would further be seen therefrom that in the formation of the Respondent No. 1, the dock workers and the employers of dock workers are to be included in equal proportions. Thus, the Respondent No. 1 for all practical purposes is the authority for not only controlling the employment and/or non-employment of dock workers in the concerned Port but it is also the Supervising Authority over the employers and the employees of the said Port. They have emphasized upon the word "employer" as deigned by Section 2(c) of the said Act to mean the person by whom the dock worker is employed or is to be employed. Similar definitions are given to "employer" in Clauses 3(8) and 3(f) of the Schemes respectively. Clauses 3(i), 3(8) arid 3(h) respectively of the said Schemes defined "employers register" to mean register of Dock Employers to be maintained under the said Schemes. It is alleged that the Respondent No. 1 Calcutta Dock Labour Board is the Controlling Authority for registration or non-registration of an employer under the said Schemes as would be confirmed by Clause 3(b), 7(b), 7(c) respectively of the said Schemes. The said Schemes would indicate inter alia that only the Respondent No. 1 is the Appointing Authority but is also the Disciplinary Authority. It is also claimed that in fact, without the sanction of the Board, no registered employers including the members of the petitioners, can employ any dock worker and the employers like the members of the petitioners have also to comply with and/or act in respect of the said dock workers in terms of the directions and/or regulations fixed by the Respondent No. 1 and make payment to such dock workers in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Schemes, under the control and supervision of the Respondent No. l. In the background of such function of the Board as provided in the statute, the Respondent No. 1 made the aforesaid resolution Nos. 62 and 65 respectively and obtained the approval of the Central Government thereof which are contrary to and/or inconsistent with the Act and the Schemes. The petitioners state that the said purported Resolution Nos. 62, dated. 6.9.85 and the purported Resolution No. 65, dated September 71, 1985 and the purported approval granted by Letter, dated November 21, 1985 by the Central Government are arbitrary, illegal and mala fide. They are without and/or in excess of jurisdiction, and without the Authority of law. The writ petitioners have specifically challenged that the Respondent No. 1 cannot legally be registered as "employer" under the said Act and/or the said Scheme. They assert that there is no provision in the said Act and/or the said Scheme and/or the said Rules whereby the Respondent No. 1 can register itself and/or act an "registered employer". The said purported resolutions and/or the said purported approval are, therefore, ultra vires the said Act and/or the said Schemes and therefore, null and void and no effect can be given thereto and/or no steps taken on the basis thereof and/or thereunder.