The main legal point established in the judgment is that boatmen are to be treated as dock workers and entitled to benefits under the 12(3) Settlement.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Award dated 30.11.2012 passed in I.D.No.72 of 2011 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Chennai and to quash the same.)

1. This Writ Petition challenges the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.No.72 of 2011 dated 30.11.2012.

2. The petitioner is the Chairman, Tuticorin Port Trust and the Tuticorin Port Trust, Cargo Handling Labour Pool, represented by its Deputy Traffic Management. The dispute arose by virtue of a reference made by the Government of India on 18.08.2011, in exercise of its powers conferred under Sections 10(1)(d) and 10(1)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said reference is as follows:

"Whether the action of the management Tuticorin Port Trust for not regularizing / deploying the workmen of the petitioner union on par with Cargo Handling Labour Pool Workers is justified or not? To what relief the petitioner Union workmen is entitled to?"

3. The Tuticorin Port Trust is not a natural Port. It does not have the deep sea facility. Therefore, cargo ships used to be anchored seven Nautical miles away from the "Rabbit Island". The cargo would be loaded and unloaded through boats in the mid-sea and the same would be offloaded in the Tuticorin "B" Port.

4. From "B" Port, the cargo would be loaded on boats and unloaded onto ships in the mid-sea. The new Port "A" is a modernized port and has been designed to receive heavy ships. Due to the shallow-depth, boatmen were engaged to take the cargo from the Port onto the mid-sea in order to lighten the weight of the ships and bring them onto shore. Similarly, from the shore, the boatmen are used to carry the cargo onto the ships which were waiting to be loaded.

5. Insofar as the labourers of the Port are concerned, it is used to be supplied by the persons called "Kangani". The Kangani used to supply workmen to the Stevedores and other cargo handlers. They used to physically load and unload the cargo. There are several handlers to such workmen, namely, Winchman, Signalman, Tindal, Short Maistry, Stevedore Mazdoor, Shore Mazdoor and Tally Clerk. The shipping agents/handling agents used to pay wages to the boatmen.

6. It is not in dispute that the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948, applies to the Tuticorin Port Trust. It is also admitted that the boatmen were used to move the cargo from mid-sea to shore and vice versa. From 1981 onwards, a series of 12(3) Settlements were arrived at. The purpose of the settlement was “decasualisation” of labourers. The idea being, the labourers who were at the mercy of the “Kanganis”, were liberated from such exploitation. The persons who were physically handling the cargo were alone transferred under the 12(3) Settlement to a pool maintained in the Port. By virtue of a Settlement arrived at between the parties from 01.01.2000 onwards, the labourers who were handling the cargo physically were removed from the category and were absorbed into the Tuticorin Port. The boatmen claimed similar benefits. It was granted by the CGIT by the impugned award. Hence, this Writ Petition.

7. I have heard Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Narayanan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

8. Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan would argue that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Port and the members of the boatman Union. He would also state that they are not the cargo handlers and therefore, they are not covered under the Settlement arrived at under Section 12(3). He would further state that by virtue of the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Chennai, settled issues have been unsettled and it requires interference in the hands of the Court.

9. Mr.K.S.Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for th