Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1969 (9) TMI 118 - SC - Indian Laws

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court rules Dock Labour Board not liable for dock workers' bonus claim The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal erred in making the Dock Labour Board liable for bonus payment to dock workers, as the claim was ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                            Supreme Court rules Dock Labour Board not liable for dock workers' bonus claim

                            The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal erred in making the Dock Labour Board liable for bonus payment to dock workers, as the claim was primarily against the Stevedores Association. The Court determined that the Board did not have an employer-employee relationship with the dock workers, as the Stevedores were the actual employers. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for consideration against the Stevedores Association only, excluding the Board. The appeal was allowed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal acted illegally and without jurisdiction in making the Board liable for payment of bonus.
                            2. Whether there exists an employer-employee relationship between the Board and the Dock Labour workmen.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Tribunal's Jurisdiction and Liability of the Board:
                            The appeal, by special leave, by the Vizagapatam Dock Labour Board (the Board), contests the Industrial Tribunal's award that directed the Board to pay bonus to dock workers for the years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67. The Central Government had referred the question of bonus payment to the Tribunal, which included the Board, the Visakhapatnam Stevedores Association, individual Stevedores, and two Unions representing workers.

                            The Unions claimed that the work at Visakhapatnam Port was similar to that at other major ports where settlements on bonus had been reached. They argued that since the Board and the Stevedores Association were governed by the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1948 and the Vizagapatam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1959, their claim for bonus was justified.

                            The Stevedores Association contested the claim, asserting that the dock workers were employees of the Board, not the Stevedores, and thus, no claim for bonus could be made against them. The Board also contested, stating that it was a statutory body and not an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Stevedores were the actual employers responsible for the bonus.

                            The Tribunal, however, held the Board liable for the bonus, considering it the employer of the dock workers. It awarded bonus rates of 13 paise per ton for 1964-65, 14 paise per ton for 1965-66, and 15 paise per ton for 1966-67.

                            The Supreme Court found that the claim for bonus was primarily directed against the Stevedores Association and its members. The Tribunal was not justified in making the Board liable for the payment of bonus, as the claim was against the Stevedores. The Tribunal's understanding that the claim was against the Stevedores is evident from its own statements.

                            2. Employer-Employee Relationship:
                            The second contention was whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between the Board and the dock workers. The Supreme Court examined the Act and the Scheme, which regulate the employment of dock workers. The Board maintains a Dock Labour pool, supplies labor to the Stevedores, and collects wages from them to pay the workers. The Board also handles disciplinary actions and fixes wages.

                            The Court noted that the Board's primary responsibility is the administration of the Scheme, ensuring regular employment and adequate labor supply. The Stevedores are the actual employers who control and supervise the dock workers. The Board acts as an agent for the registered employers when allocating workers and handling payments.

                            The Court concluded that the Board could not be considered the employer of the dock workers. The relationship of master and servant exists between the Stevedores and the dock workers. The Board's functions under the Scheme do not establish an employer-employee relationship.

                            The Court also considered whether the Board could be considered an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. It concluded that the Board does not carry on an industry, and thus, the Tribunal's direction for the Board to pay the bonus was incorrect.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Supreme Court set aside the Industrial Tribunal's order dated May 24, 1968, and remanded I.D. No. 10 of 1967 to the Tribunal for disposal according to law. The Tribunal is to consider the claim against the Stevedores Association and its members, excluding the Dock Labour Board from the proceedings. The appeal was allowed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found