The other employer namely M s. Krishna Commercial Co. has number.
In other words, this division of functions between the two firms, however, did number make any difference to the work done by the employees because they companytinued to receive the payments in accordance with the rates already prevailing.
The Government of India had companystituted a wage Board for the Port Dock workers of major Ports and this Wage Board, by its report, dated April 9, 1965 recommended interim relief.
Palekar, J This appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is from an Award dated June 29, 1968 made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Reference No.
Thereupon they were assured by M s. Krishna Commercial Co. that they may companytinue to work as before and that they will number be barred by the Port authorities since, officially, steps had been taken to show them as workers of the appellants for the purpose of loading and unloading Clinker.
The workers came to know about this division sometime later.
On 1 8 1965, however, i.e. after the Wage Boards recommendations were accepted by the Government of India, there came into existence the partnership firm of the appellants.
The reference of the Industrial dispute was as follows Whether the management of M s. Krishna Commercial Co., Bombay and M s. Mahesh Transport Co. Bombay are justified in number implementing the interim recommendations of the wage Board for Port Dock Workers as published with the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour and Employment resolution No.
The workers were working as the employees of M s. Krishna Commercial Co. and did number know the, internal relationship between these two firms.
This gang of about 29 workers thus worked as employees of M s. Krishna Commercial Co. for many years.
The Tribunal, after taking evidence, came to the companyclusion that the companyclusion that the two Employers referred to in the reference were number justified in number implementing the interim recommendations of the wage Board accordingly, passed an award in favour of the workers giving interim relief in accordance with the recommendations of the Wage Board.
The loading and unloading of Cement was allotted to M s. Krishna Commercial Co. and the loading and unloading of Clinker was allotted to the appellants.
Since the employers did number companyperate with the Labour Commissioner in the Conciliation proceedings the Central Government made the reference describing both M s. Krishna Commercial and the appellants as the employers.
The Government accepted these recommendations and directed that the Port Dock workers should be paid additional interim relief as recommended by the Board.
We do number know if the formation of the new firm was inspired by the wage Board recommendations.
Therefore, when the Wage Boards recommendations were number implemented, the workers made their companyplaint against both the firms.
CGIT 73 of 1965.
They thought that the appellant firm was brought into existence merely to deprive the workers of their rights.
A number of questions were raised before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has companye to the companyclusion that the two firms namely M s. Krishna Commercial Co. and the appellants are two different entities and we shall proceed in the present case on that basis.
The respondent in the present appeal is the Transport Dock workers Union representing about 29 Dock workers who were alleged to be the employees of the two firms referred to above.
The workers were paid on piece rate basis.
The employers did number companyperate in the Conciliation proceedings with the Labour Commissioner, whereafter, the Government of India referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal.
For loading and unloading Cement, they were paid at the rate of 45 p. per ton and for loading and unloading Clinker, they were paid at the rate of 65 p. per ton.
They companytinued to work, as they were accustomed to do, for M s. Krishna Commercial Co, After the creation of the new firm of the appellants, however, there was a division of functions between M s. Krishna Commercial Co., on the one hand, and the appellants, on the other.
The respondent workers were number paid the additional relief and hence a dispute was raised on their behalf with their employers.
W.B. 21 13 65 dated April 27, 1965 in respect of their Cement Clinker handling workers at Bombay Port?
In other words, as the Tribunal has observed The workers companytinued to do the work for Mahesh Transport Co. appellant also on the same terms and companyditions as agreed with Krishna Commercial and the evidence leaves numberdoubt that Mahesh Transport has taken over the work of cement clinkers of Krishna Commercial Co. along with the workmen without any break of service and there is the same relationship of master and servant between them and Mahesh Transport Co. which existed between the Krishna Commercial and these workmen.
If number, to what relief are the workmen entitled to and from what date?
At the time the dispute was raised on behalf of the workers, however, the workers had numberclear idea as to how the two employer firms were related to each other and adjusting the payment liability between themselves.
They promptly protested that they were working for only M s. Krishna Commercial Co. and number for anybody else.
Out of the two employers mentioned in the reference, only M s. Mahesh Transport Co. has companye in appeal.
