Holding

The National Tribunal correctly held that bargemen are dock workers entitled to the Wage Board rates, and the High Court's quashing of the award was erroneous; the award is restored.

Summary

The Calcutta Port Sharmik Union, representing about 15,000 bargemen (Dandees and Majhis) at Calcutta Port, claimed that they were "dock workers" under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 and therefore entitled to the wages and allowances recommended by the Central Wage Board. The Wage Board had excluded bargemen, prompting the Union to seek a reference to a National Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal held that bargemen fell within the definition of dock workers and were entitled to the Wage Board rates, and alternatively fixed the same rates independently after considering the employers' financial capacity. The managements challenged the award in the Calcutta High Court; both the Single Judge and the Division Bench quashed it, holding the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed those decisions, emphasizing that the Tribunal was correctly empowered to decide the applicability of the Wage Board recommendations and to fix fair wages, and restored the award.

Issues considered

Whether bargemen (Dandees and Majhis) are covered by the definition of 'dock worker' in Section 2(b) of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948.
Whether the National Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Central Wage Board recommendations and to fix wages independently.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Tribunal's award on technical or jurisdictional grounds.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 136
Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948s. 2(b)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10(1A), s. 7B

Subjects

dock workersbargemenwage boardindustrial tribunaljurisdictionwage fixationindustrial disputeCalcutta PortDock Workers ActIndustrial Disputes Act

Judgment

A CALCUTIA PORT SHARMIK UNION
v.
CALCUTIA RIVER TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION & ORS.

SEPTEMBER 13, 1988

B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.]

Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act; 1948: Section
2(b)-'Dock worker'-Whether includes Dargeman-'Dandees' and
'Majhis'-Whether bargeman entitled to receive wages and allowances
recommended by Wage Board. ·
c Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 7B and JO ( JA)-
Tribunal-Reference to presumption that there is a dispute between
parties-Courts exercising judicial review should sustain as far as possi-
ble the awards of tribunals-Whether bargeman entitled to wages
recommended by Wage Board-Tribunal examining decision of Wage
D Board whether 'bargemen' are 'workmen'-Whether valid.

The Government of India set up a Wage Board for the port and ;
dock workers at major ports on November 13, 1964(1) to determine the
categories of employees who should be brought within the scope of
proposed wage fixation, and (2) to work out a wage structure for those
E employees on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the Government.
The Wage Board submitted its final report on November 29, 1969. The
Wage Board did not choose to make any recommendation in respect of
bargemen, i.e., Dandees and Majhis at the Port of Calcutta. According
to the Wage Board, the bargemen were engaged more in the transport
of cargo rather than its handling and they therefore did not tit in with
F the definition of 'dock worker'. Thereupon, the bargemen raised an
industrial dispute claiming the benefit of the Wage Board recommenda-
tions. Accordim!ly, the Central Government on August 22, 1970 con-
stituted a National Tribunal at Calcutta for adjudication whether the
recommendations of the Wage Board were applicable to the bargemen,
and if not, to what relief with regard to wages and allowances were they
G entitled.

The National Tribunal held that the bargemen were entitled to be
paid wages and allowances at the rates of wages recommended by the
Wage Board on the ground that the bargemen came within the meaning
of the definition of 'dock worker' and thus the recommendations of the
H Wage Board were applicable to them, and alternatively, on the ground
1034
CAL. PORT UNION v. CAL. TPT. ASSCN. 1035.

that they were entitled to the same rates of wages and allowances even
A
independently, having regard to the financial capacity of the manage-

J ment .and au other relevant considerations governing the determination
of.the wages.

Aggrieved by the award of the National Tribunal, the manage-
ments tiled two, writ petitions before the High Court at Calcutta ques- B
tioning its validity on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the
reference.

The learned Single Judge observed: (1) that the scope of the refer-
ence was to find out from the report of the Central Wage Board itself.
whether the recommendations were applicable to the bargemen or not,
and it was not for the National Tribunal to criticise the report of the c
Central Wage Board and to establish that the bargemen were dock
workers within the meaning of the Act; (2) the National Tribunal, in a
ronnd about way, made the· recommendations of the Central Wage
Board applicable to the bargemen although apparently the recommenda-
tions were not applicable to them, and (3) the National Tribunal having o
held that the recommendations of the Ce~tral Wage Board were applic-
able to the bargemen, there was no scope for it to decide independently
the pay strncture of the bargemen. The learned Single Judge accord-
ingly quashed the award as beyond the jurisdiction .of the National
Tribunal.
E
The Division Bench, on appeal, agreed with the Single Judge and
fnrther held that the National Tribunal had failed to fix the wages in
accordance with the settled principles.

Allowing the appeal, it was,
F
HELD: (1) The object of enacting the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and of making provisiontherein to refer disputes to tribunals for settle-
ment is to bring about industrial peace. Whenever a reference is made
by a Government to an industrial tribunal it has to be presumed ordi-
narily that there is a genuine industrial dispute between the parties
which requires to be. resolved by adjudication. In all such cases an G
attempt shonld be made by Courts exercising power of judicial review
to snstain as far as possible the awards made by industrial tribunals
instead of picking holes here and there in th• awards on trivial points
and ultimately frustrating the entire adjudication 'process before the
tribunals by striking down awards on hyper-technical grounds. l1042B-CJ
' H
1D36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A (2) In. order to decide the question whether the bargemen were
dock workers or not the National Tribunal had to examine incidentally
the corre~ness of the decision of the Wage Board on the question, and
after taking into consideration all the material before it the National
Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the bargemen were also dock
workers and there was no justification for denying them the benefit of
B the recommendations of the Wage Board. This part of the Award could,
therefore, be considered to be outside the scope of the reference made to
the National Tribunal. The finding recorded by the National Tribunal
may be right or wrong but it could not be considered as one recorded
without jurisdiction. [I048B·D]

The National Tribunal while holding that even independently
c of the (3)
recommendations of the Wage Board, the bargemen were entitled
to the same wages and allowances which had been.recommended by the
Wage Board had observed that it would not be beyond the capacity of
the employers to pay. The criticism of the award in this regard by the
High Court was wholly unjnstlned. [1048E-F; 1049AJ
D
(4) The wages and allowances fixed by the National Tribunal
were just and not at all excessive. [I049E]

Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. and Anr. v. The Unio_n of
India and Others, [19591 S.C.R. 12 referred to.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
3564-65 of 1979.

From the Judgment and Order .dated 6.3.1979 of the Calcutta
High Court in F.M. Appeal Nos. 446 & 447 of 1978.
F
S.K. Nany for the Appellant.

G.L. Sanghi, D.P. Mukharjee, Praveen Kumar and G.S. Chat-
terjee for the Respondents.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATARAMIAH, J. It is unfortunate that nearly 15,000
bargemen, i.e., Majhls the Dandees working at the Calcutta Port have
been denied their right to receive reasonable wages and allowances for
nearly 12 years on account of a very narrow view taken by the Calcutta
H High Court in the decision under appeal.
CAL. PORT UNION v. CAL. TPT. ASSCN. {VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 1037

J The Government of India set up a Wage Board for the port and· A
dock workers at major ports on November 13, 1964 and made a
reference to the said Board of the following terms_. n~mely-

(a)' to determine the categories of employees,(manual',' clerical,
supervisor, etc.) who should be brought withih the scope 'of
proposed wage fix,ation (exclridirig, however, the Class I and B
Class II Officers); apd ·

(b) to work out a wage structure based on the principle of fair
wages as set forth in the report of the Committee of Fair Wages.

In making the reference the Central Government ·laid down
guidelines as to how ihe fii1r wages were to be determined and further C
direcied the Board to submit its recommendations in respect of interim
relief pending submission of the final report. The Wage Board submit-
ted its recommendations regarding the interim relief on April 9, 1965
and in the course of the said recommendations it observed that they
would be applicable to certain categories of employees and port and D
dock workers at major ports.

· The Wage Board submitted its final report on November 29,
1969. Since the Wage Board had been authorised under the terms of
reference to determine the specific categories of dock workers and
employees who in the opinion of the Board should be brought under E
the scope of the principles of wage fixation, the Wage Board had
specified the categori~s of workers who were entitled to relief-at its
hands even at the stage of making of the interim recommendations,
referred to above. At this stage it is necessary to refer to the definition
of the expression 'dock worker' in the Dock Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Clause F
(b) of section 2 of the Act defines the expression 'dock worker' thus:

"2(b). 'dock worker' means a person employed or to be
employed in, or in the vicinity of, any port on work in
connection with the loading, unloading, movement or stor-
age of cargoes, or work in connection with the preparation G
of ships or other vessels for the receipt or discharge of
cargoes or leaving port."

The above definition of 'dock worker' is of wide import and it
includes all categories of workers working in a port or in the vicinity, if
they are handling cargoes. But the Wage Board, however, did not H
. 1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R .

A choose to make any recommendation in respect of bargemen, i.e.,
Dandees and Majhis at the Port of Calcutta, who were more than
15 ,000 in number. As a matter of fact there was an earlier reference by
the State Government of a dispute regarding the wages payable to
b.argemen, i.e., Dandees and Majhis at the Port of Calcutta and the
Industrial Tribunal had ~y an award dated March 9, 1966 fixed their
B basic wages at Rs.110 aP'il'Rs.130 per month respectively. There were
also certain ad hoc incremenLS of such wages by different interim ag-
reements. When these categories of workmen found that the Wage
Board had not made any recommendation regarding the wages
payable to them, they raised an industrial dispute claiming the benefit
of the Wage Board recommendations. Accordingly, the Central
Government on August 22, 1970 constituted a National Tribunal at
C Calcutta and referred to it under section 7-B and section lO(lA) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the following issue for adjudication, ·
namely,-

"Whether recommendations of the Central Wage Board
D for the Port and Dock workers as accepted by the Central
Government in their resolution No. WB-21(7)/69 dated the I
26th March, 1970 are applicable to the bargemen in the
matter of wages and allowances? If not to what other relief
with regard to wages and allowances are they entitled?"

E In the statement of claims filed by the trade union representing
bargemen it was contended that barges, lighters and- boats performed
the combined functions of transit sheds, warehouses, jettie~; quays,
wharfs on a miniature scale and enabled loading and unloadlng of
cargoes into and from ships, and that they carried almost all the
cargoes from mills, factories and establishments located at the back of
f the river as it was found to be advantageous and economical to use
barges, lighters and boats for loading and unloading of cargoes into
and from ships because of all round lower costs. Accordingly, the
trade union claimed that barges, lighters and boats were engaged in
dock works and the workmen concerned fully conformed to the defini-
tion of 'dock workers' as given in the Act. It, therefore, claimed that
G thefiargemen were also entitled to th~ scale fixed by the Wage Board
in Paragraph 7.2.108 of its final report. Alternatively, the union
claimed that if their wages were to be assessed independently then
they were entitled to a minimum wage of Rs.206.40 paise on the very
same consideratiOJls which led the Wage Board in .its recommenda- ...
lions to fix the minimum wage figure as il!Forporated in Paragraphs
H 7.1.19 to 7.1.70. The employers on the otherband and mainly the two
CAL. PORT UNION v. CAL. TPT. ASSCN. [VENKATARAMJAH, J.] 1039

J
associations representing the employers in their counter statement
A
made out a case that bargemen. did not come within the definition of
'dock workers' and were not covered by the Wage Board .recommen-
dations since they were employed mainly in the transportation of
goods. According to them the bargemen were employed in carrying
jute and jute goods from jute mills to ships berthed in and around the
docks from mills to mills, jetties and ghats and also cargoes from ships B
to various places in the State of West Bengal. The managements
claimed that the bargemen were neither wholly engaged in docks and
streams nor were they involved in the process of unloading and
loading. In support of this claim the managements depended upon the
findings of an Expert Committee appointed by the Central Govern-
ment fo the effect that bargemen were engaged more in the transport
of cargo rather than its handling and they therefore did not fit in with
c
the definition of 'dock worker3'. In that view the employers contended
that the first part of the reference was totally misconceived inasmuch
as on the recommendations of the Wage Board itself the bargemen did
not come within its pui:view. Secondly, the employers disputed the
co'rrectness of the wage fixation as made by the Wage Board with D
reference to certain alleged infirmities pointed out by them including
" the infirmity of the Board not considering the capacity of the industry
to pay as laid down by the Courts. So far as the second part of the
reference was concerned, the employers urged that the wages of the
bargemen had been fixed by the Industrial tribunal on a reference by
the Government of West. Bengal made on 4.1.1965 and that the wages E
so fixed had been revised from time. to t\l"lle by agreement between the
parties and there being no change in the circumstances justifying any
iuhher revision thereof, there should be no upward revision of the
existing wage structure. They also pleaded that the financial capacity
of the employers did not permit any further enhancement in the wages.
F
The National Tribunal after overcoming certain preliminary
obstacles placed before it by the institution of a writ petition in the
High Couri ofCalcutta by the management questioning the validity of
the reference itself, was able to pass an award on 20.7.1976. The
National Tribunal held that since the bargemen, i.e., Dandees and
Majhis were ·aock workers they were entitled to get wages and G
· aifowances in accordance with the Wage Board recommendations.
After taking into consideration the relevant circumstances, the
National Tribunal also held that the Dandees and Majhis working
under the members of the Calcutta River Transport Association, and
of the Bengal River Transport Association and under the Port Ship-
ping Co. Ltd. were entitled to payment of higher wages and allowances H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A w .e.f. 1.1.1976~ven independently· of the recommendations of the [.
Wage Board but at the same rates which had been recommended by
the Wage Board, which were considered by the National Tribunal
,reasonable in the circumstances of the case. This part of the award was
made pursuant to the second part of the reference made to the
National Tribunal.
B
Aggrieved by the award of the National Tribunal, the manage-
ments filed two writ petitions before the High Court of Calcutta ques-
tio'hing the validity of the award. The learned Single Judge, who heard
the writ petitions, was of the view that the award was liable to be set
asfde as it was beyond the scope of the reference. The learned Single
C Judge observed in the course of his order dated 4.4.1978 thus:

"The reference has two parts. One part relates to the
applicability of the recommendation of the Central Wage
Board for Port and dock workers to the Bargemen in the
matter of wages and allowances, the other part relates to
D the wages and allowances the Bargemen are entitled to if
the recommendations of the Central Wage Board are not
I
applicable to the said Bargemen. As regards the first part,
the scope of reference is, to find out from the report of the
Central Wage Board itself whether the recommendations
are applicable to the Bargemen or not ............... .
E
The tribunal in exercising its jurisdiction is only
bound by the terms of reference. The jurisdiction is
confined to the actual points of disputes referred to. In the
instant case, the reference was whether the recommenda-
tion of the Central Wage Board was applicable to the
F Bargemen or not. It is not for the tribunal to criticise the
report of the Central Wage Board and to establish upon
oral and documentary evidence that the Bargemen are
dock workers within the meaning of the Act, and as such
they are entitled to the wage recommended by the Central
Wage Board to the Bargemen of the Calcutta Port.
G

Rightly or wrongly the Central Wage Board arrive~
at a particular conclusion. The National Tribunal; it seems,
acted as a Court of Appeal, found fault with the recom-
mendations arrived at by the Central Wage Board and
H criticised its recommendation in saying that the word
' . CAL. PORT UNION v. ·CAL. TPT. ASSCN. [VENKATARAM!AH, l.l 1041

"wholly engaged" did not find place in the definition of
A
dock workers in Sec. 2(b) of the Act of 1948 and the Wage

- .Board came to a wrong conclusion which was inconsistent
wiih the definition of the dock workers in the AcL In a
round about way, the National Tribunal made the recom-
mendations of the Central Wage Board applicable to the
Bargemen although apparently the recommendations are B
not applicable to them. In my view, in doing so and in
making such an award the Tribunal has exceeded its juris-
diction,

In making the reference, the Central Government
was conscious that the recommendation of the Central
Wage Board might not be applicable to the Bargemen C
although the Bargemen made demand for implementation
of the said recommendation and raised a dispute. That is
why, the second part of the reference was there. The
National Tribunal could have come to an independent con-
clusion that the Bargemen are dock workers and they D
should be paid similar wages as recommended by the
Central Wage Board with respect to the Bargemen of
Calcutta port. The Tribunal answered the first part of the
reference and held that the recommendation of the Central
Wage Board would be applicable to the Bargemen, as such
there was no scope for deciding the second part of the E
reference _although the Tribunal dealt within its Award the
pay structure of Dandees and Majhis, which should not
have been done.,.
'•
On the basis of the above findings the learned Single Judge
quashed the award passed by the National Tribunal. Aggrieved by the F
decision of the learned Single Judge, the trade union filed an appeal
before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench by
its judgment dated 6.3.1979 affirmed the judgment of the learned
Single Judge. The Division Bench was of the view that there was. a
serious doubt as to whether all dock workers answering the definition
of 'dock workers' in the Act were entitled to be brought within the G
scope of the proposed wage fixation by the Wage Board. So far as the
second issue was concerned, the Division Bench held that the National
Trib1,mal had failed to fix the wages in accordance with the settled
principles. It also agreed with the finding of the learned Single Judge
that the decision of the National.Tribunal was beyond its jurisdiction.
which was controlled by the questions referred to it for adjudication. H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
...
Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench, the trade union has
A
filed these appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitu-
tion of India.

Th~ object of enacting the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and of
making provision therein to refer disputes to tribunals for settlement is
-
B to being about industrial peace. Whenever a reference is made by a
Government to an industrial tribunal it has to be presumed ordinarily
that there is a genuine industrial dispute between the parties which
requires to be resolved by adjudication. In all such cases an attempt
should be made by Courts exercising powers of judicial review to sus-
tain as far as possible the awards made by industrial tribunals instead
of picking holes here and there in the awards on trivial points and
c ultimately frustrating the entire adjudication process before the
tribunals by striking down awards on hyper-technical grounds.
Unfortunately ihe orders of the Single Judge and of the Division
Bench have resulted in such frustration and have made the award
fruitless on an untenable basis.
D
In the present case the National Tribunal has held in Paragraph
I
27 'of its award that the reference related to the determination of the
wage strueture in respect of bargemen, i.e., Dandees and Majhis
working in or about the Calcutta Port and to none other. There is no
dispute on this question before us. We shall proceed on that basis.
E
The reference on made on 22,8.1970, The validity of the refer-
ence itself was questioned by some of the managements in a writ
petition filed in the High Court. That writ petition was dismissed on
24.1.1972. Against the dismissal of the writ petition a writ appeal was
filed before the Division Bench of the High Court which was uncondi-
f' tionally withdrawn on 11.7.1974. During this interval there were
atleast two strikes and some attempts at settlement between the
parties. The settlements did not conclusively put an end to the dispute.
In the aforementioned settlements which were only of interim charac-
ter it was made certain that the demands of the workmen concerned
for the enhancement of wages and allowances to be paid to the barge-
G men, both on the basis of the recommendation of the Wage Board as
well as on the basis of their alleged legitimate claim for enhancement
in spite of the Wage Board award, were to be decided by the National
Triounal. During the period· of four years between the date of the
reference and' the date on which the writ appeal was withdrawn from
the High .Court there were changes in the Presiding Officers of the
H National Tribunal. Shri B.N. Banerjee was the Presiding Officer of
)
CAL. PORT l.JNION v. CAL TPT. ASSCN. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.[ 1043

the National Tnbunal at the time when the rererence was made. On his
retirement
,
on I'N.6.1971 Shri S.N. Bagchi was appointed as Presiding A
Officer. On the retirement of Shri S.N. Bagchi on 31.1.1974 Justice
E.K. Moidu was appointed as the Presiding Officer on 18.7.1974. The
reference was finally heard and decided by Justice E.K. Moidu.

When the hearing of the reference was resumed by the National B
Tribunal after the disposal of the Writ Appeal before the High Court
some of the managements raised several preliminary objections before
the National Tribunal. They were all rejected by the National Tribunal
for the reasons given in the course of its award (vide Paragraphs 10 to
15 of the award). The National Tribunal rightly observed that the
reference in question ·consisted of two distinct parts viz. one part relat- t
ing to wages and allowances to be paid to the bargemen on the basis 'of
the recommendations of the Wage Board and the other part relating to
the wages and allowances to be fixed in favour of the bargemen on the
basis of the demands made by the bargemen independently of the
recommendations of the Wage Board. The National Tribunal rejected
the contention of the managements that the second part of the refer- D
ence could not be considered by it as under the settlement dated
25. 7 .1970 what was sought to be referred to it was only the dispute
relating to the implementation of the recommendation of the Wage
Board and not the general claim made by the bargemen far enhance-
ment of their wages and allowances by fixing a wage structure. The
National Tribunal pointed out that both parties had agreed ·in Exhibit E
M-5(a), which was a settlement, that the Government should refer the
dispute to an appropriate tribunal and that right was left to be decided
~ by the Central Government. The Central Government thereafter had
referred the matter to the National Tribunal for its decision and hence,
it could not be held that the second part of the ·reference was without
any basis. The National Tribunal then proceeded to consider the two F
points referred to it independently. The first part of the .reference, .as
already stated, related to the application of tire Wage Board award to tire
bargemen, i.e., Dandees and Majhis. In order to decide the said ques-
tion the National Tribunal had to take into con.side ration the recom-
mendations made. by the Wage Board. While the Wage Board had
accepted that the definition of the expression 'dock worker' found in G
the Act was relevant for purposes of determining the scope of the
reference made to it, it however declined to make any recommenda-
tion in respect of the bargemen working in the Port of Calcutta. even
It though it felt that the conditions of service and emoluments of the
bargemen at Calcutta were unsatisfactory. The Wage Board observed
· in the course of its recommendation thus: H
1044 '
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

"Bargemen are engaged more in the transport of
A
Cargo rather than in its handling and they therefore do not
fit in with definition of dock workers. They are also work-
ers who have to be attached to or employed at particular
barges (sic). We recommend that the Government should
make an early investigation into their conditions of
B services, emoluments, etc. which are stated to be highly
unsatisfactory (unanimous)."

After the recommendations of the Wage Board were received by
the Government of India, the Government of India by its order dated
26.5.1970 requested the Calcutta Dock Labour Board and the
Commissoners for the Port of the Calcutta and concerned employers
C to implement expeditiously the recommendations of the Tripartite
Expert Committee in the light of the observation made by the
Government. The Government of India by a letter written by the Joint
Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation
(Department of Labour and Employment) dated 15.6.1970 to the
D Secretary, Government of West Bengal drew the attention qf the
Government of West Bengal to the terms of reference under the
Tripartite Expert Committee for Calcutta Dock and the recommen-
dations of the Committee pertaining to bargemen and pointed out inter
alia that the barge crew did not come under the term 'dock worker' as
alleged by both the Central Wage Board as well as by the Tripartite
E Expert Committee. It, however, requested the State Government to
consider the question of setting up a committee for bargemen of
Calcutta Port and to keep the Central Government informed of the
developments. No action was taken on the basis of the above letter. It
was the case of the bargemen that they were dock workers as defined
in the Act and the denial of the benefits under the recommendations of
F the Wage Board was wrong. It appears that at some stage even the
Central Government was not quite sure of the position whether barge-
men, i.e., the Majhis and Dandees could be classified as dock workers.
The bargemen, therefore, thought that it was proper to approach the
Central Government to refer the dispute in question to a tribunal.

G The National Tribu.l)al after taking into account the above events
and the evidence recorded by it and the submissions made by the
parties held that the definition of 'dock worker' did include within its
scope bargemen too but the Wage Board had erroneously failed to
make any recommendation with regard to the wages ·and allowances
payable to the bargemen. The National Tribunal held that "they
!I (bargemen) live in the barges, cook food and sleep there and stay in
• CAL. PORT UNION v. CAL. TPT. ASSCN. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 1045

the barges for 24 hours of the day. So, they form part and parcel of the ' A
dock workers." In paragraphs 24 .and 25 of the award the National
Tribunal observed thus:

"The above evidence both on the union's side as well
as on the management's side establishes that Majhis and
Dandees have been doing similar work of other Dock B
Workers employed by the Calcutta Dock Labour Board in
the matter of loading and unloading of Cargo in and out of
the barges. The Wage Board, however, restricted the scope
of the word "Dock Worker" with a view to exclude the
bargemen out of the definition of dock worker as defined in
Act 9 of l948. In paragraph 4 of the Wage Board report the
Board stated that the definition of dock workers in Act 9 of
c
the 1948 was ver}' wide and may be construed to mean all
categories of worktrs._working in a port or in the vicinity, if
they are handling cargo. But once the bargemen come into
the purview of the definition of dock workers as defined in
Act 9 of 1948, there was no ground for excluding bargemen D
from the definition. They had to admit that bargemen are
also working in the Ports. The most prominent activity in a
port is cargo handling and it is in this work that a lot of
labour is employed. In most of the ports a fairly large
quantity of cargo is handled overside in the docks or in the
stream by lightermen. This aspect of the case had been E
understood by the members of the Board, They had given a
restricted meaning to the definition of dock worker

The definition of the dock workers has to be under-
stood in the light of not only their work in the port but also F
consistent with the definitions of cargo, vessel, employer
and the port in /he Acts referred to .above. The terms,
loading, unloading and movement of persons employed in
any port in conn'ection with the preparation of Ships' or
Vessels for the receipt or discharge of cargo would°indic'ate
that the work of the bargemen came rightly within Ole G
definition of dock workers as defined in Act 9 oI 1'148;
There is plenty of evidence in the case that their main w6fk
and activity is within the Port. The fact that one of the
companies had made use of them to go beyond the port by
itself does not in any manner bring down their description
to make them less as dock workers. The Shipping_.Company H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

has caused to be produced Ext. M-44. They are printed
A
copies of bills. Most of these bills came into existence after
the controversy had set in. It is true that there are some
bills of the years, 1964 and 1965. But it is not possible from
those bills to make out whetl:ier the Shipping Company
used barges or other crafts for the purpose of carrying
B goods to distant places. The inner foils of the.se printed
slips had also not been produced. There is nothing to ~how
that they are genuine slips maintained by the persons who
issued the same. In the absence of correct material it is
difficult to hold that the Shipping Company had taken its
barges outside the Port limits. Any way, even assuming
that they had taken the barges outside the Port limits.that
c circumstance alone will not make the bargemen less Dock.
Workers in the facts and circumstances of this case. I have
gone through the evidence in its entirety and l am satisfied
from the available evidence and records that the Wage
Board as well as Chatterjee Committee deviated from the
D definition of the Dock Workers as defined in Act 9 of 1948
and came to a wrong conclusion which is inconsistent with
the definition of the duck worker in that Act with the result I

that the bargemen were deprived of their due share of
wages to be paid to them on the basis of the recommenda-
tion they made in the report of the Wage Board. I am
E satisfied that the evidence in the case leads to the only
conclusion that the bargemen are dock workers within the
meaning of dock workers as defined in Act 9 of 1948. It
follows therefore that the bargenlen would be entitled to all
the benefits by way of wages and allowances which the
Wage Board recommended in their report."
-
F
Having held that the bargemen, i.e., Majhis and Dandees were
also dock workers, the National Tribunal observed that the recom-
mendations made by the Wage Board were applicable to the bargemen
also and they were entitled to be paid the wages and allowances in
accordance with the said recommendation.
G
Alternatively the National Tribunal took up for consideration
the second question referred to it, namely, that if for any reason the
bargemen were not entitled to the benefits under the recommenda-
tions made by the Wage Board to what other relief with regard to the
wages and allowances they were entitled? In that connection the
H National Tribunal observed at paragraph 37 of its award thus:
CAL. PORT UNION v. CAL. TPT. ASSCN. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 1047

"37. The next question for consideration is the second part
A
qf the reference. i.e., whether the Dandees and Majhis
, would be entitled to enhanced wages, and allowances and if
so what would be the rate of their monthly wages and
allowances. This has to be decided independently of 'the
recommendations of the Wage Board on the .materials
available on recqrd. The rates of wages and allowances B
under the 2nd part of the Award has· to be determined as if
the rate under the Wage Board is fair wage and not
minimum wage. Taking into consideration the evidence
and all other facts and circumstances borne out from the
records .of this case there is justification for fixing the rate
recommended by the Wage Board as the fair wage due
to be paid to the Dandees and Ma jhis with effect from C
l-1-1976."

In deciding the second question the National Tribunal placed
before itself the principles laid down by this Court in Express News-
papers (Private) Ltd. and Anr. v. The Union of India and Ors., (1959] D
S.C.R. 12 which had laid down the relevant criteria for the fixation of
rates of wages for workmen and considered the evidence placed before
it in the light of the said principles. It took into consideration the
financial capacity of the various managements who were involved in
the case, the prevailing conditions of service in Calcutta aµd other
questions governing the determination of the fair wages. It also took E
into consideration the observations made by the Wage Board which
for purposes of fixing wage rates had taken into consideration the
relevant matters while making its recommendations with regard to
• certain categories of workmen working in the Calcutta Port. It found
that almost all the managements who had given evidence before it
were capable of bearing the financial burden which would have to be F
borne by them on account of the payment of fair wages to be fixed by
it. It found that having regard to all the circumstances of the case that
the fair wages and allowances payable to the bargemen with effect
from 1-1-1976 should be the same as the fair wages payable pursuant to
the recommendations made by the Wage Board.
G
After giving our anxious consideration to the entire Award and
to the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
of the Calcutta High Court we feel that both the learned Single Judge
·and the Division Bench of the High Court erred on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case in setting aside the Award passed by· the
National Tribunal. As observed by the learned Single Judge himself H
~
,1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ l988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

that the. first question, namely, whether the recommendations of the
A Central Wage Board for the Port and Dock workers as accepted by the
Central Government were applicable to the bargemen in the matter of
wages and allowances was referred to the National Tribunal by the
Central Government as there were doubts regarding the question
whether the bargeman came with in the meaning of the definition of
B 'dock worker' in the Act or not. Naturally in order of decide the said
question the National Tribunal had to examine incidentally the cor-
·rectness of the decision of the Wage Board on the question whether
the bargemen were dock workers or not and after taking into consi-
deration all the material before it the National Tribunal had come to
the conclusion that the bargemen were also dock wurkers and there . '
was no justification for denying them the benefit of the recommenda-
c tions of the Wage Board. This part of the Award cannot, therefore, be
considered to be outside the scope of the reference made to the
National Tribunal. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
of the High Court were therefore in error in finding that the National
Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction while recording its findings on
D the above question. The finding on the said question recorded by the
National Tribunal may be right or wrong but it cannot ):>e considered as
;
one recorded without jurisdiction. We are of the view that the said
question clearly fell within the first part of the reference made to the
National Tribunal. Having held that the finding that the bargemen
were also dock workers had been recorded by the National Tribunal
E without jurisdiction the learned Single Judge proceeded fo quash the
finding recorded by the National Tribunal on the second question also
by which the National Tribunal had held that even independently of
the recommendations of the Wage Board, the bargemen were entitled
to the same wages and allowances which had been recommended by
the Wage Board having regard to the financial capacity of the manage-
ments and all other relevant factors governing the question of wages
" payable to them. The Division Bench also erred in observing that the
National Tribunal had not applied the relevant principles governing
the determination of fair wages. It erred in observing that the National
Tribunal had taken into consideration the financial capacity of the port
authorities to pay wages and allowances and not of the private emp-
G loyers like those who had challenged the Award in the High Court.
The Division Bench, however, has observed in the course of its order
that no doubt in the Award some reference was made to the financial
capacity of some o( the employers but that had been done only to
support the conclusion that the minimum wage as fixed by the Wage
Board should be admissible to these workmen and that it would not be
..
H: 'bey_ond the capacity of the employers .to pay the same. On going
'\
CAL PORT UNION v. CAL TPT. ASSCN. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 1049

through the Award we feel that the above criticism of the Award made A
by the National Tribunal is wholly unjustified. It has dealt with the
second part of the reference in paragraphs 37 to 44 of the Award which
are found in pages 146 to 157 of the Paper Book placed before us. The
National Tribunal has given reasons as to why it has adopted, while
answering the second part of the reference to it, the recommendations B
of the Wage Board.

The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High
Court should have seen that the National Tribunal was of the opinion
that the bargemen were entitled to be paid wages and allowances at the
rates of wages recommended by the Wage Board on the ground that
the Bargemen came within the meaning of definition dock workers C
under the Act and thus the recommendations of the Wage Board were

-
'
applicable to them and alternatively on the ground that they were
entitled to the same rates of wages and allowances eveh independently
of the recommendations of the wage Board as according to the
National Tribunal they were entitled to be paid at those rates having D
regard to the financial capacity of the managements and all ot.her
relevant considerations governing the determination of the wages. In
these circumstances we feel that the reasons given by the learned
Single Judge and by Division BeQch of the High Court to set aside the
Award passed by the National Tribunal are wholly unsustainable. The
wages and allowances fixed by the National Tribunal were just and not
at all excessive. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Division E
Bench of the High Court and also the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court and restore the award passed by the National
Tribunal. The award passed by the National Tribunal should now be
·• enforced by the authorities concerned in. accordance with law. These
appeals are accordingly allowed. The appellant is entitled to costs
which we quantify at Rs. 5,000. F

R.S.S. Appeals allowed.

·Ii.