1981 (8) TMI 254 - HC - Indian Laws

Payment of Wages Act Claim Dismissed: Calcutta Dock Labour Board Not Employer of Dock Workers.

The HC concluded that the application under the Payment of Wages Act was not legally maintainable, as the Calcutta Dock Labour Board was not deemed the ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the application under the Payment of Wages Act.2. Relationship of employer and employee between the Calcutta Dock Labour Board and the dock workers.3. Limitation period for lodging the claim.4. Classification of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board as a factory or industrial establishment under the Payment of Wages Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Application under the Payment of Wages Act:The Calcutta Dock Labour Board (the petitioner) filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated April 29, 1981, passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, West Bengal. The authority directed the petitioner Board to deposit arrears of wages and compensation to the dock workers. The petitioner contested the maintainability of the application on the grounds that the Payment of Wages Act does not apply to the Board, as it is not the employer of the dock workers. The court found that the authority acted improperly by disposing of the entire matter on its merits without giving the Board an opportunity to contest the claim on its merits. Therefore, the case must be re-adjudicated on merits if the application is held maintainable.2. Relationship of Employer and Employee:The petitioner argued that there is no employer-employee relationship between the Board and the dock workers, as the Board is not the employer. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act overruled this objection, holding that the Board is the employer based on the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1970. The authority noted that the Board pays wages, gratuity, provident fund, and leave salary to the workers, conducts disciplinary enquiries, and has the authority to terminate services. However, the court found that the Supreme Court's decision in Vizagapattam Dock Workers v. Stevedores Association, AIR 1970 SC 1627, which held that the Board cannot be considered the employer, was not properly distinguished by the authority. The court upheld the petitioner's objection, concluding that the Board is not the employer and, therefore, the application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act could not be entertained against the Board.3. Limitation Period for Lodging the Claim:The petitioner argued that the claim was barred by the 12-month limitation period prescribed by the Payment of Wages Act. The authority found the claim time-barred but overruled the objection, partly presuming that the Board was not serious about pressing the limitation objection and partly on the view that a public authority should not morally take up such a plea. The court agreed with the petitioner that the authority erred in not considering whether the applicants had made out a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The court emphasized that the plea of limitation is a statutory bar and must be considered irrespective of moral standards. Therefore, the matter should be reconsidered if the application is otherwise maintainable.4. Classification of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board as a Factory or Industrial Establishment:The authority held that the Board is a factory within the definition of section 2(k) of the Factories Act, as it employs more than 20 workers engaged in loading and unloading. The petitioner contended that the Board could not be classified as a factory or industrial establishment. The court found that the authority misread the definition of 'factory' and based its decision on a fundamental misconception that dock workers are employed by the Board in a manufacturing process. The court upheld the petitioner's contention that the Board is not a factory and, therefore, does not come within the purview of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.Conclusion:The court concluded that the application under the Payment of Wages Act was not maintainable in law. The impugned order was set aside, and the application for the claim was dismissed.