Mathadi Kamgar Sena v. Bombay Port Trust — 1996 DIGILAW 80 (BOM)

JUDGMENT : G.R. MAJITHIA, J. 1. The petitioner-Union is seeking a mandate to Respondent No. 1 to issue dock entry permits to 38 warai workers detailed and described in Exhibit-C to this writ petition, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. This writ petition came up for admission on March 23, 1992 before S.P. Kurdukar and S.H. Kapadia, JJ. It was represented before them that identical matter were admitted by this Court and interim directions were issued. On the representation so made the Bench passed the following order: "Mr. Gopalkrishnan tenders letters dated March 2, 1992, March 9, 1992 and March 10, 1992, addressed to the Respondents requesting them to remain present in Court since the petitioners are applying for interim orders. Letters taken on record and marked 'X' (collectively) for identification. Despite service none present for the respondents. Petitioners at Exh. G have annexed a letter setting out number of writ petitions which are admitted by this Court and this Court further issued directions to the Respondents to issue Dock Permits to the petitioners in those writ petitions. Mr. Gopalkrishnan stated before us that the present petition also involves the identical question. In these circumstances, Rule to issue. Interim order in term of prayer (b). Liberty to the Respondents to move the Court after giving 48 hours notice to the petitioner for vacating and/or modifying the interim order. Certified copy of the order if applied for to be furnished out of turn within one week." Thereafter the Respondents moved an application pursuant to the liberty granted to them by this Court in its order dated March 23, 1992 for modifying the order. This Court modified its earlier order dated March 23, 1992 on April 23, 1993 and the order so modified reads as under: "On the application of the 1 st Respondent and pursuant to the liberty granted to them under the order of March 23, 1992, the following order is passed. The 1st Respondent will be at liberty to ask the members of the petitioner-Union seeking entry permits for a declaration that they are not members of any of the unions which are parties to the agreement dated December 13, 1991, which is annexed as Exhibit 'A' to Writ Petition No. 125 of 1992. Such declaration may be asked for in the form of an affidavit. Such declaration may be asked for in the form of an affidavit. Such declaration is to be given on or before April 26, 1993." 3. Under the Court order dated March 23, 1993 the Bombay Port Trust and the other Respondents were to issue dock permits to the petitioner. Under the modified order dated April 23, 1993, this Court gave permission to the Bombay Port Trust to ask the members of the Petitioner-union seeking entry permits for a declaration that they are not members of any of the Unions which are parties to the agreement dated December 13, 1991 which agreement is annexed as Exhibit-A to Writ Petition No. 125 of 1992. The order further enjoins that the said declaration can be asked for in the form of an affidavit. 4. It is not disputed that the dock permits are issued to the workers mentioned in Exhibit-C to the writ petition. In fact under the interim order the relief claimed by the petitioner had been considered. However, we do not think it proper to re-examine this matter in the light of decision rendered in Irkar Shahu and Another vs. Bombay Port Trust and Another, 1994 (1) CLR 187. In paragraph 67 of the report the Bench while disposing of identical writ petition observed thus: "The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Its members mainly do" Warai" i.e. the work of removing the goods from trucks when they arrived in the docks and passing the goods into the hands of the regular employees of the Bombay Port Trust. The Warai workers enter the Port area along with the truck and they pass on the cargo from the truck to the shore workers of the Bombay Port Trust. They break the stack of the cargo on the truck and hand it over from the truck itself to the shore workers. They are normally paid by the truck drivers. Learned Counsel appearing for the Dock Labour Board had very fairly stated that the work done by these petitioners is not covered by either the stevedoring Scheme of 1956 or the clearing and Forwarding Scheme of 1983. In these circumstances, these petitioners are entitled to the same relief as petitioners in Writ Petition No. 108 of 92. Learned Counsel appearing for the Dock Labour Board had very fairly stated that the work done by these petitioners is not covered by either the stevedoring Scheme of 1956 or the clearing and Forwarding Scheme of 1983. In these circumstances, these petitioners are entitled to the same relief as petitioners in Writ Petition No. 108 of 92. Rule is Made absolute accordingly." Learned Counsel for the Respondents could not point out any distinguishing feature between the reported case and the instant case. Resultantly we dispose of the writ petition with the same observations as were made in Irkar Shahu's case (supra) reproduced in para 67. 5. Rule is made absolute with the following directions. 6. The workers detailed in Exhibit-C to the petition mainly do Warai work i.e. the work of removing the goods from trucks when they arrived in the Docks and passing the goods into the hands of the regular employees of the Bombay Port trust. The Warai workers enter the Port area along with the truck and they pass on the cargo from the truck to the shore workers of the Bombay Port Trust. They break the stack of the cargo on the truck and hand it over from the truck itself to the shore workers. They are normally paid by the truck drivers. Learned Counsel for the Respondents did not dispute that the work done by these workers is not covered by either the Stevedoring Scheme of 1956 or the Clearing and Forwarding Scheme of 1983. These workers will be entitled to the issuance of dock entry permits to perform their duties for their employers in the Bombay Dock, provided the comply with the necessary requirements prescribed by the Bombay Port Trust in that connection. The Bombay Port Trust shall not deny them such entry permits only on the ground that they are not dock workers registered under any of the schemes framed under the Dock Workers Act of 1948. 7. No order as lo costs. Certified copy expedited.