Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- Special leave granted.

The short question which tails for decision in this appeal is whether gratuity payable to a workman employed under the Calcutta Dock Labour Board (hereinafter referred, to as Board) is attachable for satisfaction of a decree of the Court, Mr. Safiur Rehman was a dock worker and gratuity was payable to him under one of the three prevailing schemes of the Board. Respondent 1 filed a suit before the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta asking for recovery of a sum of money against the widow and son of the said Md. Safiur Rehman after his death and prayed for attachment of the gratuity payable to the said workman. The Court made an order and called upon the Board to withhold payment of the amount whereupon the Board pointed out to the Court that gratuity was not liable to attachment. On receipt of such intimation, the Court made an order requiring the Board to show cause as to why it may not be proceeded against for disobedience of the Courts direction. The Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes examined the objection against attachment and overruled the same. Against the rejection of the objection the appellants moved the High Court at Calcutta and contended that the gratuity payable to the workman was not liable to attachment. A Division Bench of the High Court examined the tenability of the contention and came to the following conclusion :

"On a careful consideration of the legal position we, however, find that the learned Chief Judge is right in his conclusion. Plaintiff has a legal right to attach any debt payable to his debtor or legal representative. This right, however, is always subject to exceptions made by any statutory provision. Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act no doubt bars attachment but that only is inrespect of gratuity payable under that Act. The gratuity now; under attachment is payable not tinder the Act. Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended may bar attachment of gratuity as now under consideration. But that section as it now stands had not been made applicable to Presidency Small Cause, Courts. Under Section 8 of the Code, the High Court adopted certain provisions of the Code including Section 60 as amended up to 1965 and made them applicable to Presidency Small Cause Courts. Section 6, Clause (g) so adopted reads as follows: 997

(g). Stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or payable out of any service, family pension fund notified in Official Gazette by the Central Government or the State Government in this behalf and political pensioners.

This clause does not cover the gratuity payable by the Board to a registered dock worker and the subsequent amendment of this clause not having been adopted and made applicable by the High Court to Presidency Small Cause Court, the learned Chief Judge is right in his conclusion.

Next reliance is placed on Rule 9 of the Gratuity Rules which no doubt purports to exempt gratuity from attachment, But these rules, not having been made by the Central Government on powers delegated by the Parliament under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, but by the Board on sub-delegation of powers under the scheme, the same in our view cannot override the legal right of the plaintiff."

2. Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the appellants maintained that the view taken both by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court as also the Division bench of the High Court is contrary to law and, therefore, cannot be sustained. The respondents had filed an appearance through counsel but no one participated in the hearing.

3. Section 1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act (39 of 1972) (Act for short), provides that the Act shall extend to ports. Port has been defined in Section 2(n) of the Act. There can be no dispute that the Calcutta Port is covered by the Indian Ports Act, 1908. It is true that under one of the three schemes framed by the Calcutta Dock Labour Board gratuity was payable to Md. Safiur Rehman