JUDGMENT : Susanta Chatterji, A.C.J. 1. Paradip Port and Dock Mazdoor Union, represented through its General Secretary has challenged the award 30-12-1995 made by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 23 of 1995 (Central), a copy whereof is Annexure-6 to the writ application. There is an incidental prayer to direct opposite party No. I, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal. Orissa, Bhubaneswar to adjudicate I.D. Case No. 23 of 1995 (Central) on merit. 2. It transpires from the materials on record that the aforesaid Industrial Dispute Case No. 23 of 1995 (Central) was between the managements of M/s. Kararmchand Thappar and Brothers (Coal Sales) Ltd. and M/s. Doaba Industrial and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. as the first party-managements and their workmen represented through Paradip Port and Dock Mazdoor Union as the second party-workmen. 3. The Central Government in the Ministry of Labor in terms of their.Order No. L-38011/6/94-IR (Misc.) dated 16-3-95 had made the following reference: Whether the workmen engaged by M/s. Karamchand Thappar and Brothers (Coal Sales) Ltd. and M/s. Doaba Industrial & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. in intra-port transportation work at Paradip Port are' entitled to wages and other fringe benefits at par with the dock workers of Paradip Port Trust? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ? 4. It also transpires from the records that out of the two employers named in the reference of the Central Government, M/s. Karamchand Thappar and Brothers' (Coal Sales) Ltd. had earlier filed O.J. C. No. 2791/95 in this Court challenging the maintainability of the reference whereupon further proceedings in pursuance of the reference were stayed. However the said stay order was later modified by this Court with a direction to the Industrial Tribunal to register the reference and decide the question of maintainability thereof as a preliminary Issue and pass orders as expeditiously as possible. The Tribunal considered the submissions on behalf of both sides, namely the employers and the workmen and concluded that the dispute before it squarely fell within the purview of the Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act. License for transporting coal by toad from Teacher to Paradip was granted by the State Government, The workmen in the said dispute were in no way concerned with the functions which were discharged by the licensed Stevedores through the enlisted pool workers. License for transporting coal by toad from Teacher to Paradip was granted by the State Government, The workmen in the said dispute were in no way concerned with the functions which were discharged by the licensed Stevedores through the enlisted pool workers. Accordingly, the reference by the Central Government was found to be incompetent in the eye of law and hence was not maintainable. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal that the reference was not maintainable and the matter having not been heard on merit, the writ Petitioner has come to this Court seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 6. It is placed on record that the Petitioner Union is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act. 1926 and is recognized as such by the opposite party No. 5 the Chairman, Paradip Port Trust. The Paradip Port Trust is a major port under the Major Ports Act, 1963 and it deals with different types of cargoes including coal. 7. The loading and unloading of coal cargo in the Port involves movement of cargo from the coal stockyard situated within the prohibited area inside the Port to the quarry line and onto the vessels and vice versa. Loading operations of coal cargo at Paradip Port Trust starts with off-loading of cargo from wagons within the prohibited area at railway stockyard wherefrom the very same cargo is transported to the wharf and thereafter unto the vessels and ends with placement of cargo inside the vessels holds or hatches. Segment wise, the first segment of loading coal cargo comprises in the off-loading of coal at Paradip Port railway-yard and the same is done, by opposite party No. 6 by engaging licensed handling contractors of Paradip Port Trust by requisitioning workers from Paradip Port Trust C.F. & H. Workers' Pool. The second segment of loading of coal cargo comprises of transportation of coal cargo from Paradip Port railway-yard to the wharf. The third and fourth segments are being performed by the workers enlisted under the Paradip Port Cargo Handling Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1979 on being requisitioned and supplied by the Paradip port Trust. The second segment of loading of coal cargo comprises of transportation of coal cargo from Paradip Port railway-yard to the wharf. The third and fourth segments are being performed by the workers enlisted under the Paradip Port Cargo Handling Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1979 on being requisitioned and supplied by the Paradip port Trust. It is highlighted that unless the second segment of loading operation of coal cargo is performed at the Port, no shipment of coal through the Port would be possible and, the Port will fail to perform the function of shipment of cargo for which it is established. It is also indicated that the work involved in the second segment of loading of coal, i. e. from Paradip Port Railway Yard to the wharf is done by a set of workmen engaged by M/s. Karam Chand Thappar and Brothers (Coal Sales) Ltd., opposite party No. 6, through its Tikal Division and by another set of workmen engaged by M/s. Doaba Industrial Trading Company Private Ltd., opposite party No. 7, a contractor engaged by opposite party No. 6. 8. It is averred in the writ petition that opposite. parties 6 and 7 stand as contractors at the Paradip Port Trust for intratransportation of coal cargo. Opposite party No. 6 also functions as an agent at Paradip Port for Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board for shipment of coal to Madras Port by ship. 9. For the workmen engaged in respect of the first segment of shipment coal i. e. off-loading 0.? coal at the railway stack-yard from wagons and that for the workmen engaged in the third and fourth segment's, i.e. lifting the coal from quay line onto the vessels and then placing the same inside the holds/ hatches of the vessels, opposite party No. 6 ensures and provides for wages as pet the All-India Wage Settlements for the Port and Dock workers 'at the major" Ports of India. opposite patties 6 and 7 do not pay wages to the workmen employed by them' as per the All-India Wage' Settlement for the Port and Dock workers at the major Ports of India far the work involved in the second segment, i.e. transportation of coal from railway 'yard' to the wharf. The woken 'employed by opposite. opposite patties 6 and 7 do not pay wages to the workmen employed by them' as per the All-India Wage' Settlement for the Port and Dock workers at the major Ports of India far the work involved in the second segment, i.e. transportation of coal from railway 'yard' to the wharf. The woken 'employed by opposite. parties 6 and 7 are thus, being discriminated without any intelligible differentia in the matter of payment of wages and they are incurring huge financial loss for their hard labor in each shift over the years. 10. The number/of workmen employed for transportation of coal from railway yard to the wharf by opposite party No. 6 is 102 and that by opposite party No. 7 is 120. The said workmen are the members of the Petitioner Union. These workmen are designated as Supervisors, Drivers, Pay Loaders. Dozer Operators, Mechanics, Helpers Watchmen and Clerks according to the duties performed by them. The workmen involved in the present dispute are required to re-operate Paradip Port premises right in time and to perform their duties throughout the, shift in the Port premises. The operational staff' is provided with vehicles by the management at the terminal points. The work of the concerned workmen are so inter-linked with the arrival and leaving of ships at Paradip Port that the Supervisors employed by opposite parties 6 and 7 are paid 'ship allowances'. 11. It is stated that the survival of the concerned workmen is entirely dependent on shipment in Paradip Port and the same is reflected in the settlements signed by the opposite parties 6 and 7 with the unions including the Petitioner union. Opposite parties 6 and 7 have obtained the license for stevedoring operations at Paradip Post Trust issued by the competent authority for carrying out the loading operations of coal cargo. The license itself provides 'Regulations which should be strictly observed by the stevedores. One of the conditions prescribed in the license is that the stevedores shall undertake to pay the workers engaged by them the wages in accordance with the terms of the wage settlements arrived at between the Central Government and the Federation of Port and, Dock Workers from time to time. In the past the Union espoused the cause of the concerned workmen before opposite parties 6 and 7, for such relief, but without any result. 12. In the past the Union espoused the cause of the concerned workmen before opposite parties 6 and 7, for such relief, but without any result. 12. It is also stated that the wage agreement for Port Dock workers between the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping and Transport (now Ministry of Surface Transport) and the All India Port and Dock Workers' Federation provides for payment of wages to the concerned workmen at the same rate as are agreed, in respect of the Port and Dock workers. 13. The definition of 'Dock Worker' has been pointed out. There is also reference of the definition "appropriate Government" for appreciation of the Court. It is stated that on receipt of the failure report. opposite party No. 2, in due exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the dispute for adjudication, to opposite party No. 1. The terms of reference are as follows: Whether the workmen engaged by M/s. Karam Chand Thappar and Brothers (Coal Sales) Ltd. and M/s. Doaba Industrial & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.. in intra port transportation work at Paradip Port are entitled to wages and other fringe benefits at par with the Dock workers at Paradip Port Trust? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ? 14. A writ application, being J.C. No. 2791/95, was filed by opposite party No. 6 M/s. Karam Chand Thappar and Brothers (Coal Sales) Ltd. challenging, the aforesaid reference to opposite party No. 1. Both the parties appeared before the Tribunal and written statement was filed. The question of jurisdiction was pressed. In reaching the conclusion the Presiding Officer. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, opposite party No. 1, observed that the concerned workmen were admittedly not Dock Workers. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the Petitioner Union has come with this Writ application seeking the reliefs as already indicated. 15. The writ application is opposed by opposite party No. 6 M/s. Karam Chand Thappar and Brothers (Coal Sales) Ltd. by filing a counter affidavit sworn by its General. Manager on 12-6-96. Besides controvert the allegations made in the writ application it is stated' that the Industrial Tribunal is a creature of the Statute under the Industrial Disputes Act.. 15. The writ application is opposed by opposite party No. 6 M/s. Karam Chand Thappar and Brothers (Coal Sales) Ltd. by filing a counter affidavit sworn by its General. Manager on 12-6-96. Besides controvert the allegations made in the writ application it is stated' that the Industrial Tribunal is a creature of the Statute under the Industrial Disputes Act.. 1947 and has to adjudicate only the specific reference and not to travel beyond it here was never any reference as to whether the concerned workers are 'Dock Workers' or not and as such the same was not even a matter incidental thereto within the provisions of Section 10(4) of the I.D. Act. On receipt of a letter directly from the Petitioner Union the Regional Labor Commissioner (Central). Bhubaneswar convened a meeting to be held on ]5-3-94 for submission of written views. A relevant question of law relating to entertainment of the purported dispute by the Regional Labor Commissioner (Central) and the jurisdiction of the Central Government having been raised' by the concerned employers and the Union having resisted the same, the Regional Labor Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar, was pleased to hold that the question as to "appropriate Government" would be decided in consultation with the Chief Labor Commissioner (Central) after due submission of documents and information by both parties. The Tribunal having determined the process and procedure of the case relating to the issue of maintainability of the order of reference made by the Central Government as per the direction of the High Court in O.J. C. No. 2791/95 had noticed the concerned parties in clear terms of the order dated 25-10-95. The respective parties participated in the hearing of the case and made their submissions. After closure of the hearing the Petitioner filed certain petitions and after hearing the same the learned Tribunal made the award on 20-12-95 in accordance with law. It is submitted that the said award is legal and valid and, does not call for any interference by the High Court. 16. After closure of the hearing the Petitioner filed certain petitions and after hearing the same the learned Tribunal made the award on 20-12-95 in accordance with law. It is submitted that the said award is legal and valid and, does not call for any interference by the High Court. 16. It is stated that prior to the purported demand raised by the Paradip Port and Dock Mazdoor Union in respect of the contract laborers under the contractors of opposite party No. 6, the very same Petitioner Union had also raised a same and similar demand relating to the workers employed by M/s. Sethi Transport another Transport Contractor engaged at Paradip I and had filed a writ application in this High Court vide O.J. C. ! No. 778/91. In that case, the Union claimed parity in wages and i benefits for the Drivers and Pay Loader Operators engaged for transfer of cargo from stockyard to the wharf and vice versa by the transportation contractor M/s. Sethi Transport and Paradip Port Trust was also made a party thereto. The High Court vide: its judgment dated 29-4-91 rejected the Union's contention and dismissed the writ application. 17. It is stated that M/s. Karam Chand Thappar and' Brothers (Coal Sales) Ltd. opposite party No. 6, is a public limited company in private sector and undertakes inter alia the business.of hand ling of coal for and on behalf of Tamil Nadu. Electricity Board under a contract from Talcher to Paradip for its onward dispatch to Madras by ship. Such handling of coal by opposite party No. 6 consists of two parts, viz: (a) transportation of coal from Talcher to Paradip by railway wagons, and (b) by surface transport from rail way stockyard to the wharf. Opposite party No. 6 is neither a Central Government Undertaking, nor is an establishment carried on by and under the authority of the Central Government, or is controlled in any manner by the Central Government. Opposite party No. 6 is neither a Central Government Undertaking, nor is an establishment carried on by and under the authority of the Central Government, or is controlled in any manner by the Central Government. For the purpose of surface transport of coal at Paradip, opposite party No. 6 having no sufficient infrastructure engaged two contractors, viz: Karam Chand Thappar and Brothers (C.S.) Ltd. (TICIL Division) and Doaba Industrial and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Both these cataract us have their separate establishments, like men and required machineries for the handling and transport of coal at Paradip for and on behalf of opposite party No. 6 In the process, these contractors have engaged certain workers mostly in the category of Drivers and Helpers, etc.. The employees of the said contractors are engaged locally under specific contractor employment. The nature of job of those workmen employed by the contractors precisely pertains to loading and transportation of coal by mechanical device from railway stockyard to the wharf where the coal is unloaded mechanically with least involvement of manual handling. None of the said contractors is a Central Government Undertaking nor is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. 18. It is highlighted that besides opposite party No. 6 there are many other agencies undertaking similar transportation work from the stockyard to the wharf at Paradip Port. M/s. Great Eastern Shipping Company in the similar pattern is also engaged for procurement, transport and shipment of coal from Talcher to the West Coast through Paradip Port. M/s. Orissa Stevedores (P) Ltd., a licensed stevedore of Paradip Port Trust, is the handling agent of M/s. Great Eastern Shipping Company as aforesaid, having been engaged to undertake the similar work as is undertaken by opposite party No. 6. The Steel Authority of India Ltd., the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and the Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd. ( a Govt. of Orissa Undertaking) are also some other establishments engaged in transport of hard coke, cooking coal, limestone and other goods at Paradip Port. It is relevant to note that their workers like Drivers, Pay Loader Operators, Helpers, etc. are never construed as 'Dock Workers', nor do they get the wages and other benefits as.are available to the 'Dock Worker'. of Orissa Undertaking) are also some other establishments engaged in transport of hard coke, cooking coal, limestone and other goods at Paradip Port. It is relevant to note that their workers like Drivers, Pay Loader Operators, Helpers, etc. are never construed as 'Dock Workers', nor do they get the wages and other benefits as.are available to the 'Dock Worker'. In relation to the disputes and differences between such establishments and their workers as mentioned above, the appropriate 'Government' has always been the State Government. 19. After hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties and scrutinizing the impugned award made by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa dated 30-12-1995, Annexure-6 to the writ application, we find that the Tribunal after recording reasons has concluded that the concerned workmen in the present dispute are admittedly not 'Dock Workers', but are workers in the ordinary sense who claim parity with the Dock Workers, In order to enter into the prohibited Port are, worker has to possess an entry pass, but anybody possessing an entry pass does not necessarily become a Dock Worker whose legal identity has been well defined. The inevitable conclusion of the Tribunal is that merely because the concerned workmen are permitted to unload the coal lifted from Talcher at the stockyard of the Port, they are not necessarily Dock Workers. The present dispute as to claim for parity with the Dock Workers does not attract Clause (i) of Sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act but squarely falls within the ambit of Clause (ii) thereof. It has been held that the present dispute does not relate to the Paradip Port even in a remote sense nor does it concern the Dock Labor Board but the dispute simply arises out of a claim for parity with the Dock Workers. The contractors are of course employed by the management. i. e. the first member of the first party. What wage the contractors pay to those workmen and, whether those workmen are entitled to wages and fringe benefits at par with the Dock Workers is basically a question for consideration by the State Government and the Central Government does not come into the picture even remotely. The concerned workmen are not appointed by the stevedores nor do they discharge any function relating to the transportation of-cargo between the stockyard and the cargo berth. The concerned workmen are not appointed by the stevedores nor do they discharge any function relating to the transportation of-cargo between the stockyard and the cargo berth. In other words, that work is specifically assigned to the enlisted pool workers. It is therefore for the State Government to form an opinion whether the claim of the workmen appointed by the contractors for transportation of coal from Talcher to Paradip Port for parity with the Dock Workers is a dispute worthy of being referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. 20. The Tribunal has definitely concluded that the present dispute squarely falls within the purview of the Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act. License for transporting coal by road from Talcher to Paradip is granted by the State Government. The workmen in, the said dispute were in no way concerned with the functions which were discharged by the licensed stevedores through the enlisted pool workers. It is for the State Government to form an opinion as to whether the concerned workmen's claim for parity with the Dock Workers could at all be the subject-matter of an industrial dispute within the meaning of section IOU) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference made to the Tribunal by the Central Government was held to be incompetent in the eye of law and hence was not maintainable. 21. Mr. Govind Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has mainly argued that Section 2(b) of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act may be properly appreciated and the work undertaken by the contractors laborers;" is connected with the work of the Port and the reference was made by the competent authority. The functions of the Port are dependent upon the work undertaken by the workers and the Central Government was quite justified to refer the matter to the Tribunal. 22. Attention of the Court is drawn to the decision reported in 1974 Lab. I.C. 805 Ambika Prasad and Ors. v State of Orissa and Ors.. An attempt has been made to distinguish the decision. 22. Attention of the Court is drawn to the decision reported in 1974 Lab. I.C. 805 Ambika Prasad and Ors. v State of Orissa and Ors.. An attempt has been made to distinguish the decision. There a Division Bench of this Court quorum R.N. Misra and B.K. Ray, n. (as their Lordships then were) held inter alia that the loading and unloading of Ore is an activity connected with mining industry within Section 2(1b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence the Central Government and not the State Government was the appropriate Government within Section 2(a)(1) to refer a dispute between the laborers and contractors to the Industrial Tribunal. Reliance was placed on A.I. Rule 1964 S.C. 737 J.K. Cotton and Weaving Mills and Company Ltd. v. Labor Appellate Tribunal. Quoting the ratio of this decision it is canvassed that the loading and unloading by the contractors laborers are activities connected with the Port operation and hence the Central Government and not the State Government was the competent authority. 23. Reliance is then placed on the decision reported in 1977 Lab. I.C. 1199 Continental Construction (P) Ltd. v. Govt. of India. There proper interpretation has been made as to Section 2(a)(i) and Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as to 'Appropriate Government' vis-a-vis 'Dispute concerning a major port'. It has been found that the word 'concerning' appearing in, Section 2(a)(i) which defines -'Appropriate Government' must be construed in a reasonable manner and referring to such industrial disputes only which have got a proximate, intimate and real connection with the corporations or authorities mentioned in the 'said definition.' An industrial dispute between a contractor engaged by the Visakapatanam Port Trust for the construction of Break-waters and Jattis in connection with the outer harbor at Visakapatanam' Port and his workmen is likely to affect the progress of the work and would directly affect the port. Such a dispute was thus closely connected with the major port. Hence it was held that the appropriate Government to make a reference was the Central Government. 24. The entire thrust of argument of Mr. Such a dispute was thus closely connected with the major port. Hence it was held that the appropriate Government to make a reference was the Central Government. 24. The entire thrust of argument of Mr. Govind Das is that the nature of work pertains to the interest of the Port itself and if it amounts to Port work, none other than the Central Government is competent authority to refer the dispute in the instant case to the Tribunal., There is obviously prayer to interfere in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 25. There is a lengthy argument by the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 6. It is argued that the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1948 indicates inter alia what is meant by 'Cargo'. So long as goods are identifiable as something which has been carried within a ship, they are Cargo. Much emphasis has been laid on the definition as to 'Dock Workers' in the Act, in particular Section 2(b) thereof. It says that 'Dock Worker' is a worker who works in connection with the loading or unloading, movement or storage of anything, which has been carried or is to be carried in a ship or other vessel. Reference -is made to the decision reported in 1971 Lab. I.C. 499 National Dock Labor Board v John Bland and Company Ltd.. 26. It is also submitted that the movement spoken of in the definition of 'Dock Worker' in the Act is movement of cargo within the Dock area. Reliance is placed in this.respect on the decision reported in 1991 Lab. I.C. 1961 State of Maharashtra v. Thakre and Company and Ors.. 27. A strong argument is made that the workmen involved in the present writ application do not perform any work in connection with loading or unloading movement or storing of cargo in ship, or other vessels for discharge of cargo as per the definition of 'Dock Worker' u/s 2(b). Their work is limited to carrying cargo to the wharf which is intra-port transportation work and not connected with the preparation of a ship. 28. Patiently we have considered the submissions of both the contesting parties. We have perused the impugned award. ' We have perused the,pleadings and the decisions cited in support at the respective cases. Their work is limited to carrying cargo to the wharf which is intra-port transportation work and not connected with the preparation of a ship. 28. Patiently we have considered the submissions of both the contesting parties. We have perused the impugned award. ' We have perused the,pleadings and the decisions cited in support at the respective cases. The only point to be appreciated by this Court is whether the Tribunal has committed any error and as to 'whether the impugned award suffers from any irregularity or illegality necessitating interference by the Writ Court. The Tribunal by its reasoned order has noted this salient feature that the workmen and/or laborers are all engaged by contractors. There is no relationship of master and servant between the Port and the contractors' laborers. The laborers do not undertake any work of the Port. They are to carry coal from the railway-yard by transport to the Port and there are other employees engaged by the Port to put the cargo to vessel. The contractors laborers have nothing to do with the loading and unloading of goods from the vessel. Their work is not related to any work of the Port. By giving detailed reasons, the' Tribunal has found that the work undertaken by the contractors' laborers being not Port work, dispute, if any, has to be resolved by the State Government and not by the Central Government. The reference not being by the appropriate Government the Tribunal has held that it has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. There is nothing to differ from this settled principle of law. If the admitted facts lead to the conclusion that no work of the Port is involved in carrying coal by the contractors' laborers from and to the Port by transportation, the Port has nothing to do and the appropriate Government must be the State Government and not the Central Government. The reference being bad, the Tribunal is well justified to pass the award. 29. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any defect in the impugned award and we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs. R. K. Dash, J . I agree. Writ petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed