| Headnote |
Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948/Mormugao Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1965: ss.3, 4, 5A, 5B/Clauses 3(e), 3(f), 32, 54-Circulars dated 19.3.1983 issued by Mormugao Dock Labour Board, increasing general levy from 200% to 400% and welfare levy from 30% to 60% in respect of handling by grab crane fitted ships w.e.f. 30.10.1982-Central Government according approval on 11.3.1983 Imposition of levy on the basis of notional employment-Held, is permissible under the Scheme-Circulars neither ultra vires Clause 54 of Scheme nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution-Prior approval of Central Government in terms of clause 54(3), being a condition precedent, increase in levy not to have retrospective operation but would operate from date of Circulars.Constitution of India :Article 14-Mormugao Dock Workers Board--lssuance of Circulars dated 19.3.1983 by-Increase in general levy and welfare levy from 200% to 400% and 30% to 60% respectively in respect of handling by grab crane fitted ships--Circulars challenged as being discriminatory since a higher levy was imposed on ocean going vessels fitted with grab cranes as compared to transhippers-Held, Circulars not violative of Article 14. In order to ensure greater regularity of employment for registered dock workers and to secure availability of adequate number of, dock workers to the registered employers for efficient performance of dock work at the Port of Murmugao, Government of India, in exercise of its powers under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948, framed the Murmugao Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme 1965. The scheme applied to stevedoring work and cargo handling from wharf to transit shed and vice verse. The category of stevedors covered by the Scheme were gang workers and winch drivers. The Scheme provided for payment of attendance allowance and disappointment money to registered workers, and prescribed that registered employers would pay to the administrative body in such manner and at such time as the respondent- Board, which was entrusted with the responsibility of administrating the scheme, may direct the levy payable under Clause 54(1) of the Scheme and the gross wages due to daily workers.The respondent-Board, by a resolution dated 30.10.82, decided to increase the percentage of general levy payable in respect of handling by grab cranes fitted to ships, from 200% to 400% on the actual payment of one set of winch drivers and on the notional employment of two gangs per hook (400% for each gang), and to enhance the welfare levy relating to the above operations from 30% to 60% of the time rate wages both in respect of winch drivers and in respect of notional. employment of two gangs per hook. The Central Government approved the resolution by its order dated March 11,1983. Accordingly, the Board issued a Circular dated March 19, 1983 increasing the general levy and the welfare levy as aforesaid, from the date of the resolution, i.e. 30.10.1982. By another Circular a special levy of Re.1/- per tonne was imposed in respect of all cargoes manually handled from March 14, 1983. By a subsequent circular dated July 14, 1983 it was clarified that the special levy was to be calculated in respect of cargoes handled with the help of registered dock workers, whether gang workers or winch drivers. The Companies and the firms engaged in mining and export of mineral ores and carrying on the business of stevedoring in Mormugao Harbour filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the validity of the Circulars. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the circulars were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as higher levy was imposed in respect of loading of mineral ore through ocean going vessels fitted with grab cranes as compared to loading of ore through transhippers fitted with grab cranes; and, in any event, retrospective increase in the levy was not permissible under the Scheme. The High Court upheld the validity of the circulars, but held that the increased levy and the special levy could not be realised with retrospective effect. Aggrieved, the writ petitioners as also the Board filed the appeals.It was contended for the writ petitioner - appellants that imposition of levy based on notional employment of gang workers was ultra vires Clause 54 of the Scheme inasmuch as the said Clause did not authorise levy on notional employment basis. Besides, the ground based on Article 14 of the Constitution, as raised before the High Court, was also reiterated. |
