SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Cal) 12

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
M/s. Bharat Kolkata Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd. & Another - Appellant
Versus
Government of India (Ministry of Labour & Employment), Kolkata
- Respondent
CRR. No. 2846 of 2019
Decided On : 22-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Sandipan Ganguly, Ld. Sr. Advocate, Soumyajit Chowdhury, Pratik Shanu, Megha Shaw, Advocates. For the Respondents:Arun Kr. Maity, Sagar Saha, Advocates.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the responsibilities of the employer and principal employer under The Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 and its regulations, and the application of penal provisions.

Headnote:

Dock Workers - Safety, Health and Welfare - The Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, Regulation 107(1) and 116 - The petitioners sought quashing of proceedings under Section 14(2)(a) of The Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 and Regulations 107(1) and 116. The court discussed the definitions of 'employer' and 'principal employer' under the Act, liability under the regulations, and the responsibility of the petitioners as principal employers. The court also considered the duty of the employer and principal employer under the regulations and the interpretation of penal provisions. The judgment influenced by the legal provisions and their interpretations led to the dismissal of the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought quashing of proceedings under Section 14(2)(a) of The Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 and Regulations 107(1) and 116. The petitioners argued that they were not the employers of the dock worker involved in an accident and that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners' responsibility as principal employers, liability under the regulations, and the interpretation of penal provisions were central to the case. The court also noted that the complaint was filed as per Section 200(a) of the Cr.P.C. and that the trial court had taken cognizance and directed service report & disposal.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' status as principal employers, their liability under the regulations, the interpretation of penal provisions, and the filing of the complaint as per Section 200(a) of the Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the legal provisions, including the definitions of 'employer' and 'principal employer' under the Act, the duty of the employer and principal employer under the regulations, and the interpretation of penal provisions. The court also considered the trial court's cognizance and direction of service report & disposal.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

JUDGMENT

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of proceeding in CS/6041/2019 now pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court at Calcutta under Section 14(2)(a) of The Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 and Regulation 107(1) and 116 of The Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1990 and all orders passed therein including the order dated 01.02.2019 and the order dated 3rd July, 2019.

2. The petitioners’ case is that the petitioner No.1 is a company duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at the address mentioned in the cause title of the instant application. The petitioner no.1 is also an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013.

3. The petitioner no. 2 is employed as a Director with the petitioner no. 1 company.

4. It is stated that the petitioners have been falsely arraigned and implicated in the instant case at the behest of one Sri D. K. Saxena, Deputy Director (Safety), Inspector under The Dock Workers (Safety, Health & Welfare) Act, 1986, being the Opposite party to the instant application.

5. The petition of complaint is as follows:-

    “That the opposite party is an inspector of the dock safety for the port of Kolkata including Haldia Dock Complex. The petitioner no.1 is a company which was engaged in handling storage and transportation of containers at NSD, Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata on 28th February, 2018, therefore the petitioner no.1 was carrying on “Dock Work?within the meaning of Section 2D of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1986”) and at that time the petitioner no. 2 was a director of the petitioner no.1 company and was looking after the business on behalf of petitioner no.1 company and was the person responsible for Dock Work carried on by the petitioner no.1.

    That on 28th February, 2018 one Md. Imran who was employed as a driver of a trailer for transporting containers in the dock area and one Abdul Kader was employed as a gearman by M/s. T.P. Roy Chowdhury Private Limited for unloading containers from the vessel. On 28th February, 2019 at about 16.45 hours when Abdul Kader was coming back towards berth No. 7 NSD Kolkata Port Trust on his bicycle after taking drinking water and tea, he tried to overtake the trailer and skidded into its travelling path and was hit by the trailer on the road near block No.5 as a result of which the victim fell down from the bi-cycle and his legs were run over by the trailer causing severe injuries to his legs and the victim succumbed to his injuries on 28th February, 2018 at 20.30 hours. That the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were employers of the said driver causing the aforesaid accident and on enquiry it was found that the driver of the trailer had not undergone the medical examination required under Regulation 107(1) of The Dock Workers (Safely, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulation of 1990”). That under Regulation 7(4)(b) of the Regulation of 1990 it was the duty of the petitioners to comply with the Regulation 107…….”

6. It is the case of the petitioners that on the basis of the petition of complaint, cognizance was taken by the Learned Magistrate vide order dated 01.02.2019 and by the self same order the Learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioners without examination of the Inspector Mr. D.K. Saxena.

7. It is further stated that all transportations and supplies/services of tractor/trailer and reach stacker were vested on a consortium of Phonex Traders Private Limited and Kaushik Global Logistics Limited i.e. two completely separate entities, by the petitioner no.1 company vide a supply and service agreement dated 28th October, 2014 pertaining to trailer/tracker services at Kolkata Port.

8. Pursuant to the said agreement, Phonex Traders Private Limited and Kaushik Global Logistics Limited were t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top