JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:---The short question arising in this appeal is whether Hari Maruti Deokar was a "dock worker" and respondents the "employer" of Hari-the two expressions occurring in the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Scheme, 1961. 2. For the purpose of determining the point at issue formulated in the first paragraph, the factual position no longer disputable is thus:--- Respondents are Clearing Agents working as such in the Bombay Port Trust. Uday D. Phadnis was the registered owner of a truck bearing registration No. M.R.L. 2217. Possibly the truck was given on hire by Phadnis to a concern doing business in the name and style of Pankaj Transport Co. The truck was used on 28-11-1979 to carry a consignment of goods by Godrej Co. to the Indira Dock. This was because the goods had to be exported. At the steering wheel was a Driver and the truck had two Cleaners on its. One of them was Hari. After the truck has effected an entry into the dock it came upto the sport where goods were to be unloaded. The truck had to be brought into position and for this purpose Hari was giving directions to the driver. In the backward movement of the truck, the Driver lost control over the vehicle and the result was that Hari was crushed between a pillar and the truck. The crushing led to Hari's demise. Respondent did not give an intimation of this mishap as required by Sub-paragraphs (1) and (5) of Para 4 of the Scheme. For that reason, the Senior Inspector, Dock Safety, Bombay moved a complaint against them in the 16th Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Bombay. The said Magistrate held that in relation to Hari, the respondents were not the employer. He therefore acquitted them and it is this acquittal which is assailed in the present appeal. 3. Para 2(8) of the scheme assigns to the words "dock worker" and "employer" the same meaning which these have in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. The said Magistrate held that in relation to Hari, the respondents were not the employer. He therefore acquitted them and it is this acquittal which is assailed in the present appeal. 3. Para 2(8) of the scheme assigns to the words "dock worker" and "employer" the same meaning which these have in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. The definitions are thus:--- "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 storage of cargoes, or work in connection with the preparation of ships or other vessels for the receipt or discharge of cargoes or leaving port; "employer, in relation to a dock worker, means the person by whom he is employed or to be employed as aforesaid." Now, Hari was not in the employ of the respondent. In being a Cleaner on the truck which brought the goods to the dock Hari was not performing any work in connection with the loading, unloading, movement or storage of cargo. His employment was restricted to working on the truck belonging to Phadnis. The cargo had been loaded on the truck by him nor was it to be unloaded by him. The movement spoken of in the definition of the "dock worker" would not include a transporter of cargo from outside the dock to place in the dock. The 'movement' spoken of by the definition would be the movement of cargo within the dock area. Once there exists no nexus between the employment of the victim of fatal accident and the Clearing Agent, the latter cannot be looked upon as the victim's employer. In the instant case Hari was not a dock worker and respondents were not his employer. Therefore, they could not be fastened with the responsibility contemplated by sub-paragraphs (1) and (5) of para 4 of the Scheme. Paragraph 59 which lays down the penalty was not attracted and hence the order. ORDER Appeal dismissed. The acquittal of respondents is confirmed. Appeal dismissed. -----