JUDGMENT Banerjee, J. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 28th December, 1989 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, West Bengal, in Claim Case No. 1981 of 1987. The Calcutta Dock Labour Board was not a party in the said proceeding before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's compensation inasmuch as the claim for compensation was filed by one Wahid Mia against his employer A.C. Roy & Co. (Private) Ltd., and the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation had awarded a sum of Rs. 17,659.30p. as compensation of the injury sustained on his right eye with partial loss of vision causing partial disablement to the extent of 30%, M/s. A.C. Roy & Co. (P) Ltd. against whom the claim was filed and against whom order was passed by the Workmen's Compensation Court did not prefer any appeal. On the contrary this application for leave to appeal had been filed by the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. It was stated in the application for leave to appeal that the Calcutta Dock Labour Board is authorised by M/s. A.C. Roy & Co. (P) Ltd. and other stevedores who are registered employer to contest on its behalf the claim case in the Court of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, and pursuant to that agreement the Calcutta Dock Labour Board was under the obligation to pay the compensation money pursuant to an award and as in this case the award has been made and pursuant to that agreement, money has to be paid by the Calcutta Dock Labour Board, the Calcutta Dock Labour Board should be allowed to prefer an appeal. The Calcutta Dock Labour Board was not a party in the proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Calcutta Dock Labour Board was not a party in the proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The right of the workmen for compensation can only be enforced against the employer and the "employer" has been defined in Section 2(e) of the said Act which reads as follows :- "2(e) "employer" includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship means such other person while the workman is working for him." The liability to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a statutory liability. There is no privity of contract between Wahid Mia and the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. There is no statutory provision that all the workmen appointed by the stevedores would automatically become the employee of the Calcutta Dock - Labour Board. Now the question is whether the Calcutta Dock Labour Board would be permitted to prefer an appeal against the award made against M/s. A.C. Roy &. Co. (P) Ltd. against whom an award has been passed. M/s. A.C. Roy & Co. have not preferred any appeal. 2. Mr. Guha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board drew our attention to the provisions of Section 5-A(2) of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 wherein it is provided that every such board shall be a body corporate with the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract and may, by that name, sue and be sued. Further a copy of the agreement was produced before this Court. In that agreement it was provided that the Calcutta Dock Labour Board shall act for and on behalf of the constituent members and it was further stated that all the constituent members have granted power of attorney to conduct cases for and on behalf of the constituent members on the strength of the power of attorney given by all the constituent members including M/s. A.C. Roy & Co. (P) Ltd. and as such leave should be granted to prosecute this appeal. 3. Mr. (P) Ltd. and as such leave should be granted to prosecute this appeal. 3. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 referred to a Division Bench judgment this Court in the case of (1) Calcutta Dock Labour Board v. The Payment of Wages Authority & Ors. reported in 1982 Lab IC 657, wherein it was held by the Division Bench that the Dock Labour Board is constituted under Section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 whose function is to administer the scheme framed under the Act with a view to ensure greater regularity of employment and for regulating the employment of dock workers in relation to their employer and registration of both the dock workers and their employers. The term 'employer' in relation to a dock worker bas been defined in Section 2(e) of the Act to mean the person by whom he is employed or to be employed. Neither under the Act nor under the Scheme a dock worker, who may be registered as such under the Scheme, is a worker of the Board. Such workers are really employed by the stevedores who really stand in the position of employer in relation to dock workers employed by him. Therefore, the Board cannot be considered to be the employer in respect of the dock workers. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are in full agreement with the view expressed by the above Division Bench judgment that there was no privity of contract "between the Dock Labour Board and the workmen concerned, and that the workers are employed by the stevedores and the concept of 'employer' could not be enlarged to mean any other person who under the agreement has undertaken to fight out the litigation for and on behalf of the stevedores. The expression "persons aggrieved" has a definite connotation and we cannot enlarge the meaning of the word "person aggrieved" so as to include any person who may have ultimately to bear the burden. It is a statutory liability and the liability has to be discharged by the authority mentioned in the statute and no outside agency could be permitted to intervene in this matter. It is a statutory liability and the liability has to be discharged by the authority mentioned in the statute and no outside agency could be permitted to intervene in this matter. The arrangement between the Dock Labour Board and the stevedores is purely a domestic arrangement and on the strength of such arrangement it cannot be said that the Dock Labour Board has any right to prefer any appeal when the employer did not prefer any appeal. If the employer prefers an appeal on the strength of the power of attorney the Dock Labour Board can play the role of power of attorney holder. The Dock Labour Board cannot be allowed to prefer an appeal in stead and place of the employer. According to us the only person aggrieved is the employer against whom such an award has been passed and when the employer has not preferred an appeal we cannot allow somebody else to file an appeal on the strength of power of attorney. Accordingly we are not inclined to grant any leave to appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation in which the Dock Labour Board was not a party. Accordingly, the application is dismissed with cost assessed at 10 G.Ms. Mr. Guha prayed for stay of operation of this order by which we dismiss the application for leave to appeal. According to us the prayer is wholly misconceived and accordingly the prayer is rejected. Hazari, J.: I agree.