The parties to the Reference included the Board, the Visakhapatnam Stevedores Association, certain individual Stevedores and two Unions representing workers.
The Association further pleaded that it was an unnecessary party to the Reference and the workmen had numberclaim as against it in view of the fact that the Association or its members were number the employers of the dock workers.
On the other hand, the Board urged that it was the Stevedores and their Association that carried on the stevedoring industry during the years for which a claim for bonus was made by the workmen and therefore, if at all, the liability for payment of bonus should be that of the Stevedores and their Association.
The said Scheme is similar to the Scheme obtaining in the areas where a settlement had been entered into regarding bonus and the relationship between the Stevedores and the Dock Labour Board was also the same in all ports.
The Board claimed that it was a statutory body companystituted under the Act and governed by the statutory Scheme in the discharge of its statutory functions.
They further referred to the fact that the Board and the Stevedores Association were all governed by the Dock Workers Regulation of Employment Act 1948 Act IX of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Vizagapatam Dock Workers Regulation of Employment Scheme, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Scheme , framed thereunder.
This appeal, by special leave, by the Vizn gapatam Dock Labour Board hereinafter referred to as the Board , is directed against the award, dated May 24, 1968 of the Industrial Tribunal.
They also companytested the claim of the workmen on merits.
It further urged that the claim, having been made by the workmen against the Stevedores, the latter should number be allowed to companyvert the said claim into one against the Board.
They claimed that the work done by the workmen at Visakhapatnam Port was exactly similar to the type of work done by the Stevedores workmen at Bombay, Calcutta, Cochin and Madras and that therefore their claim for bonus was justified.
The Unions claimed bonus at 14 paise per ton for 1964 65, 15 paise per ton for 1965 66 and 16 paise per ton for 1966 67.
The Attorney General also referred us to the plea taken by the Board in its written statement that a claim exclusively made by the dock workers as against the Stevedores should number be allowed by the Stevedores to be companyverted into a claim made as against the Board and that numberaward companyld be passed against the Board companytrary to the claim of the workmen themselves.
The Board also further pleaded that it was number a necessary or proper party to the dispute.
The Board, represented by its Chairman, filed a written state merit companytesting the claim of the Stevedores that they were number the employers of the dock workers.
Both the Unions filed statements of claim on behalf of their workmen.
The two Unions were the Port Khalasis Union and the Dock Workers Union.
After referring to the functions of the Administrative Body under the Scheme, the Board claimed that it had numberfurther part to play in the proceedings before the Tribunal.
They referred to the demands made by them for payment of bonus and the rejection thereof by the Board and the Stevedores Association.
They referred to certain agreements having been reached in respect of bonus between the workmen and the respective Stevedores Associations, in Calcutta, Cochin, Madras and Bombay.
Andhra Pradesh.
Hyderabad in I.D. No.
The Central Government, by its order dated April 13, 1967 referred for adjudication, to the said Tribunal, the question whether the demand for payment of bonus to Dock Labour Board Workers employed at Visakhapatnam Port for the accounting years 1964 65, 1965 66 and 1966 67 was justified and, if so, at what rate should such bonus be paid.
