Tribunal sets aside order, ruling appellant not providing cargo handling services as per statutory definition.

The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. It held that the appellant, a manpower supplier in the cement manufacturing process, did not qualify as providing "cargo handling services" as per the statutory definition. The appellant's role in overseeing automated packing and loading processes was deemed supportive and ancillary, with no direct engagement in handling cargo. The lack of control over machinery and the contractual nature of the labor's role led to the conclusion that the appellant's activities did not meet the criteria of a cargo handling service renderer.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is providing "cargo handling services" to a company in relation to cement manufacturing.
2. Whether the appellant's activity qualifies as cargo handling service as per the statutory definition.

Issue 1:
The appellant was alleged to be rendering "cargo handling services" to a company in connection with cement manufacturing. The appellant argued that it was merely a manpower supplier and not a cargo handler. The appellant's role was described as providing labor for managing various points in the mechanized process of packing and loading cement bags. The appellant emphasized that the packing and loading activities were fully automated and mechanized, with their laborers playing a secondary role. The appellant contended that it did not own the machinery for packing and loading, nor did it hire out the machines, thus not meeting the criteria of a cargo handling service renderer.

Issue 2:
The statutory definition of cargo handling services includes loading, unloading, packing, or unpacking of cargo. The appellant's activity was analyzed in light of this definition. It was observed that the appellant's role was to supplement and oversee the automatic and mechanized packing and loading processes. The labor provided by the appellant was found to play a supportive and ancillary role, without directly engaging in the actual packing or loading of cement. The judgment highlighted that the appellant did not have control over the machinery involved in the process, and the labor contract clearly outlined the supportive nature of their role. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the appellant was not rendering cargo handling services as defined by the statute, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.

---