The court established that Boat Workers should be regularized on par with Cargo Handling Workers, emphasizing equal treatment based on their roles in port operations.

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Challenge is to the order of the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant / Port Trust, the challenge in which was to the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal on a reference made by the Government of India under Section 10 (1)(d) and 10(1)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The question that was referred to was as to whether the action of the Management of the 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? The claim of the Union was that before modernization of the Port, the Port could not receive heavy vessels and heavy vessels have to berth in the deep sea. The cargo handling workers and boat workers have been utilized by the Port Trust to unload the ships and transport the cargo through Boats to the Port. In some cases, services were used to reduce the weight of the ship by unloading the part of the cargo so that the ship can berth in the port.

3. Since 1981, the cargo handling workers who formed the Dock Workers' Union had been agitating for permanency as they were made dependent on contractors, who were otherwise called "Kanganis". Their demands found favour with the Authorities and various 12(3) settlements were entered with the Cargo Handling Workers Pool. Nearly about 1200 cargo workers were gradually taken in as the employees of the Port on a regular basis. This benefit was not extended to the boat workers. Though they also fell within the wide definition of Dock Workers under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948, the boat workers were denied regularization which led to an industrial dispute being referred as stated above.

4. The claim of the workmen was resisted basically on the ground that these boat workers were not directly involved in cargo handling and they were not physically handling cargo therefore, they cannot be termed as dock workers. It was the further contention of the Port that these boat workers were not under direct employment with the Port at any point of time and there is no means of identifying the boat workers. In the case of cargo handling workers, the Port had a list of 1200 cargo handling workers, which was maintained ever since 1981 and such authentic and agreed list was made the basis for regularisation.

5. In so far as the boat workers are concerned, there was no such list and these boat workers were employed by the Ship owners or Stevedore Agents. The Tribunal though accepted the contention of the Port that these workers were not under the direct control of the Port and as such ascertaining their numbers will be difficult however, concluded that these boat workers should also be treated on par with cargo handlers as it felt that but for the boat workers, the cargo handling workers will not be able to perform their functions. The fact that the Port has been modernized and deepened was also put against the claim of the Boat workers.

6. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the entire material, reached a conclusion that the Boat Workers are also entitled to be treated on par with the cargo handling workers as they come within the definition of dock workers as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. On the said finding, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal directed regularization of the services of the Boat Workers also in a phased manner on par with the Cargo Handling Workers. This award was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition in W.P.No.16111 of 2013.