Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 456
High Court Of Calcutta
AMITAVA LALA
GHATAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY LTD - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
W. P. 18361 (W) Of 1999
Decided On : 07/09/2004
D.KUNDU, Rajendra Nam Barik, S.C.Ukil, VINOY MISHRA
The definition of 'inland water' under Section 2(b) of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, is broad enough to include any canal, river, lake, or other navigable water, and that the petitioners' vessels, which operate on the river Ganges (Bhagirathi), fall within this definition.
Headnote:
EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 - Inland Water Transport Establishments - Section 1(3)(b) - Notification No. 565 dated May 5, 1980 - Inland Vessels Act, 1917 - Section 2(b) - Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - Section 2(q) and 2(r) - Indian Ports Act, 1908 - Section 5 - Bengal Waterways Act, 1934 - Section 40(2) Proviso - Applicability of Provident Fund Coverage to Inland Water Transport Establishments - Court's Interpretation and Analysis.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the notification issued by the government of West Bengal under Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which specified all inland water transport establishments employing twenty or more persons as a class of establishment to which the provisions of the said Act shall apply. The petitioners contended that their vessels operating on the river Ganges (Bhagirathi) cannot be covered as vessels under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, and that the notification is not applicable to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notification issued by the Ministry of Labour under G. S. R. 565 is valid and applicable to all inland water transport establishments, irrespective of whether they are covered under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, the Bengal Waterways Act, 1934, the Bengal Ferries Act, or the Canals Act, 1964. The court found that the definition of 'inland water' under Section 2(b) of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, is broad enough to include any canal, river, lake, or other navigable water, and that the petitioners' vessels, which operate on the river Ganges (Bhagirathi), fall within this definition.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification issued by the government of West Bengal under Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is applicable to inland water transport establishments that are not covered under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917. 2. Whether the definition of 'inland water' under Section 2(b) of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, is broad enough to include the river Ganges (Bhagirathi), on which the petitioners' vessels operate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notification issued by the Ministry of Labour under G. S. R. 565 is valid and applicable to all inland water transport establishments, irrespective of whether they are covered under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, the Bengal Waterways Act, 1934, the Bengal Ferries Act, or the Canals Act, 1964. 2. The court found that the definition of 'inland water' under Section 2(b) of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, is broad enough to include any canal, river, lake, or other navigable water, and that the petitioners' vessels, which operate on the river Ganges (Bhagirathi), fall within this definition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notification issued by the government of West Bengal under Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and held that the notification is valid and applicable to all inland water transport establishments, including the petitioners' vessels.
( 1 ) BOTH the writ petitions are directed to be analogously heard. A challenge has been thrown in respect of the notification being No. 565 dated May 5, 1980 whereunder government of West Bengal in exercise of the powers conferred of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' Provident funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 specified all inland water transport establishments and employing twenty or more persons as a class of establishment to which the provisions of the said Act shall apply with effect from May 31, 1980. Such writ petition is numbered as W. P. 18361 (W) of 1999. But it appears to this Court that the other writ petition which has been directed to be analogously heard being C. O. 13114 (W) of 1988 whereunder the petitioner itself wanted to be covered by the Employees Provident Funds scheme. However, since a question of law belatedly in the affidavit-in-reply to W. P. 19361 (W) of 1999 has been taken, the Court has to give answer to that effect.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, they are running their vessels from one side to other of the river Ganges (Bhagirathi ). They contended that those vessels cannot be covered as vessels under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917. But I find from Section 2 (b) itself that "inland water" means any canal, river, lake or other navigable water. In such Act under Section 70, the central Government is given power to issue notification how much of any tidal water shall be deemed to be an inland water for the purposes of this Act.
( 3 ) SECTION 2 (q) of the Major Port Trusts act, 1963 says that "port" means any major port to which this Act applies within such limits as may from time to time be defined by the central Government for the purpose of this Act by notification of the Official Gazette and until a notification is so issued within such limits as may have been defined by the Central government under the provisions of the Major port Trusts Act.
( 4 ) SECTION 2 (r) of the Act says port approaches relation to a port means those parts of the navigable rivers and channels leading to the port in which Indian Ports Act is in force.
( 5 ) SECTION 5 of the Indian Ports Act 1908 empowers the Central Government to alter the limits of the Port by making appropriate notification in the Official Gazette.
( 6 ) THE Bengal Waterways Act, 1934 had been enacted for the purpose of providing (sic) for the maintenance and improvement of the waterways in West Bengal. Proviso to Section 40, sub-section (2) of the Act declares that no navigable channels within such limits as may have been declared under the Indian Ports navigable rivers and channels, leading to the said port, shall be placed under the control and administration of the Board.
( 7 ) IT has been contended by the petitioner in carrying out such business of ferry service, no permission is required from the respective authorities constituted under Bengal waterways Act, 1934, Bengal Ferries Act and the Canals Act, 1964 all of which Acts are applicable to inland water establishments. Therefore, the applicability of the notification is bad in law and as such the notification is liable to be declared (sic) as void, inoperative, illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction and not binding upon the petitioner.
( 8 ) ACCORDING to me, the averment as made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 18361 (W)/1999 is wholly erroneous in nature. Neither the Inland Vessels Act nor the Major port Trusts Act nor the Bengal Waterways Act nor Bengal Ferries Act nor the Canals Act control the applicability of the coverage of the provident fund. It is to be noted that Ministry of Labour issued the notification in respect of the Inland Water Establishments in which there are 20 or more employees in number. The issuance of such notification by the Ministry of labour cannot be controlled as if it will be applicable either in Inland Vessels Act, 1917 or the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 or Bengal waterways Act, 1934 or Ben
