Rupendra Swain vs Calcutta Dock Labour Board

Chatterjee, J.—This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act whereby the said authority dismissed the application of the employee. The Petitioner is the employee. In his petition he claimed to be a person employed in an industrial establishment, viz., Calcutta Dock Labour Board, and it was further stated that the Calcutta Dock Labour Board was the person responsible for the payment of wages u/s 3 of that Act. His claim was that a sum of Rs. 20 was unlawfully deducted from his wages for the wage period which ended on December 31, 1960. He claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 200. The Dock Labour Board filed its objection. According to that Board it was not a factory nor a notified establishment within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act. It was stated that while under the employment of M/s. B.G. Bose & Company, Stevedores, the applicant sustained injuries, and during his absence on injury he was given advances of a total sum of Rs. 570 out of which the applicant was entitled to Rs. 213.75 P. as compensation for the disabilities caused to him; the balance amount advanced by the Board was liable to be recovered by the Board and for recovering the same it deducted a sum of Rs. 20 out of his monthly wages of Rs. 135. The documents filed in the case are evidence of the allegations made. The question arose before the authority concurred as to whether the Calcutta Dock Labour Board was an industrial establishment and the person responsible for the payment of wages u/s 3.

On behalf of the Petitioner employee it has been urged by Mr. Basu that the Dock Labour Board is the employer because Rule 36(2) of the Scheme for Calcutta Dock Workers Regulations of employment provides that "a registered dock worker in the Reserve Pool who is available for work shall be deemed to be in the employment of the Board." I have also been referred to Rule 32 which shows that the Dock Labour Board would pay a worker under the Reserve Pool register, particular sums. Rule 34 refers to disbursement of money. Rule 35 refers to holidays. Rule 41 refers to wages, allowances and conditions. Rule 43 refers to payment in respect of employment or under-employment. Rule 45 refers to disciplinary procedure. Rule 46 refers to special disciplinary powers of the Chairman. Rule 47 refers to termination of employment. Rule 48 refers to appeals by workers. It is urged on behalf of the Petitioner that if the Petitioner is a registered dock worker about which there is no doubt and if he be deemed to be in the employment of the Board and if there be so many conditions relating to his condition of service between himself and the Board there cannot but be a relationship of employer and employee for the purpose of the Payment of Wages Act.

On behalf of the Dock Labour Board I have been referred to the Scheme of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. Rule 7, Clause (b) refers to the functions of the Board and functions of the Board include regulating recruitment and entry into and discharge from the Scheme of dock workers for the allocation of registered dock workers in the Reserve Pool to registered employers. Clause (h) refers to levying, recovering from registered employers contributions in respect of the expenses of the Scheme. Under the Scheme there is an administrative body and Rule 11 refers to the functions of the administrative body. Rule 11, Sub-rule (b) provides for keeping, destroying, maintaining from time to time such records as may be necessary. Clause 11(f) is important for our purpose, and this clause provides that the administrative body shall in particular be responsible for the payment as agent of the registered employer to each daily worker of all earnings properly due to the worker from the employer and the payment to such workers of all moneys payable by the Board to those workers in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.

this makes a distinction between payment to those dock workers whose services are placed at the disposal of a registered employer and others, as soon as the services of a dock worker is placed at the disposal of the registered employer, the said worker will get his wages from the Dock Labour Board not as the employer but as the agent of the registered employer. But in cases where his services are not placed at the disposal of a registered employer, the Dock Labour Board would be responsible for payment of some money not wages or earnings to him. If we now refer to Rule 41, we will find that wages allowances or other conditions of services are as follows:

Unless otherwise specially provided for in the Scheme it shall be an implied condition of the contract between a registered dock worker and a registered employer that (b) the fixation of wage periods, time for payment of wages, deductions from wages shall be in accordance with provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. Hence, Rule 41 clearly indicates that for the purpose of the Payment of Wages Act with reference to all matters relating to wages and deductions from wages shall be as between the registered employee and registered employer. Hence, with reference to the Scheme of the work it is difficult to say that the employer is always the Dock Labour Board and its employee is always the dock worker. On the other hand, it is clear while the services of a dock worker is placed at the disposal of a registered employer there is a relationship of employer and employee for the purpose of the Payment of Wages Act as between themselves and not as between the registered dock worker and the Dock Labour Board. It may also be stated as between the registered employer and the registered employee, the registered employer may be an employer within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act and may be a person responsible for all reliefs under the Payment of Wages Act.

The function of the Dock Labour Board, as we have referred to in para. 7, is regulation of employment for the purpose of providing dock workers to a registered employer and also to have a Reserve Pool of registered dock workers, or in other words, the Dock Labour Board is an authority which regulates the supply of the registered dock workers to the registered employers. In doing that they are responsible to the dock workers to a certain extent and the dock workers are entitled to certain payments from the Dock Labour Board for want of employment or for some other reasons and not for services rendered.

I shall now come to the question as to whether the Board is an industrial establishment within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act. Industrial establishments u/s 2(ii). Clause (b) refers to ''dock wharf and jetty''. Dock Labour Board does not itself carry on any work of the nature referred to in the Payment of Wages Act or in the notification in connection therewith. It is merely a body for regulating certain matters between the registered employer and the registered employee and one of the functions of which is to see that the registered employees get some allowance or some payment while out of employment and under certain other conditions as provided in the Scheme itself. Hence, I am of opinion that a Dock Labour Board is not a notified industrial establishment within the meaning of Section 3 and, therefore, whatever other rights the Petitioner may have against the Board, the Petitioner has no right under the Payment of Wages Act. It is sufficient for me to say that the Petitioner has no remedy under the Payment of Wages Act against the opposite party.

The Rule is disposed of as above No order for costs.

This order will govern Civil Rules Nos. 4997 to 5000 of 1962.