' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.-Pakistan Warehouse and Carriers Workers' Union, the petitioner, has filed this petition challenging the resolution dated 8th of April 1980, passed by respondent No. 1, directing the "registered employers" engaged in the stuffing and destuffing of containers at new Container Yard (Old M. I. Yard) (hereinafter referred to as "the yard" for the sake of convenience) not to engage workers other than a registered 'dock worker' on this job. It is asserted that as a result of this resolution passed by respondent No. 1 the members of petitioner's Union are likely to be rendered unemployed as the registered employers cannot engage the members of petitioner's Union for the work of stuffing and destuffing of the containers in view of the above resolution. It is also stated in the petition that the members of the petitioner's Union are not the Dock Workers, within the meaning of Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the work of stuffing and destuffing of the containers is not a "Dock Work" within the meaning of Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme") and as such the impugned resolution passed by respondent No. 1 is illegal and without any lawful authority. Respondent No. 1, which is statutory authority constituted under Act IX of 1974, has contested the petition, while respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and No, 7 have supported the petition, respondent No, 6 has opposed it, and respondent No, 5, remained absent. The respondent No. 1 has raised the following contentions in the petitions :- "(1) That the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter.
(2) That the petition cannot be decided effectively without joining K. P. T. And Karachi Harbour and Dock Workers' Union, who are necessary parties in the petition.
(3) That stuffing and destufffing of the container is an operation forming part of loading and unloading of ships or in any case a work connected therewith.
(4) That the stuffing and destuffing of the container is being done at a place or premises to which Act IX of 1974 and the Scheme framed thereunder applies and as such it can only be performed by registered Dock Workers."
2. Before dealing with the contentions raised in the petition by parties we may briefly refer the circumstances under which respondent No 1 was constituted and the object of its constitution. To obliterate the effect of continuous Labour unrest amongst the workers employed at Karachi Seaport and a consequent decline in the output of tonnage handled there, during the period of 1972-73, the Government promulgated Ordinance XXVIII of 1973 on 3-11-1973, known as Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Ordinance, 1973, which inter alia provided for framing of a Scheme under section 3 of Ordinance by the Federal Government to provide for registration etc. Of "Dock workers", to ensure greater regularity of employment for 'Dock workers' and for efficient and economic turn round of ship and vessels. A month later, the Federal Government framed the Scheme and notified it in the official Gazette on 3-12-1973, known as the Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973. Under paragraph 4 of the above Scheme, the Karachi Dock Labour Board (respondent No. 1) was constituted, and was made responsible for giving effect to the objects of the Scheme. The respondent No. 1, under the Scheme, besides exercising overall control over the "Dock Workers" registered with it, also exercises administrative control over the Registered Employers, who en gage "Dock Workers" for each work on the docks through respondent No. 1. The Scheme, however, in its application, is restricted to such "dock workers" only who are registered with respondent No. 1. The Ordinance XXVIII of 1973 with minor modification was passed as Act IX of 1974, by the Federal Legislature on 1-3-1974 and still holds the field.
3. Having stated the above background we now deal with the question of locus standi first, raised by respondent No. 1 in the petition. Mr. Obaidur Rahman the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that the petitioner not being registered dock worker or a member of the registered Dock Workers' Union, has no locus standi to challenge the decision/resolution dated 8-4-1980 passed by respondent No. 1 di recting the work of stuffing and destuffing of containers to be performed at the yard only by a "registered dock worker". It is, however, not disputed before us that this decision was communicated to respondents Nos. 2 to 7 by respondent No. 1 for compliance and that the necessity of passing the above resolution by respondent No. 1, arose as a result of engagement by the registered employment (Stevedoring Firm), who in turn are e nagged by respondents Nos. 2 to 7 on this work, of persons other than registered dock workers in connection with the stuffing and destuffing of the container at the Yard. It is also not disputed before us that workers belonging to the petitioner's Union who were before engaged by several registered employees for the aforesaid work, as a result of the resolution dated 8th April 1980, passed by respondent No. 1, were refused engagement on such work. In the petition there is a Categorical assertion made by the petitioner that the workmen belonging to its Union were employed on the Yard in connection with the stuffing and destuffing of the, container by respondents Nos. 2 to 7' before passing of the impugned resolution and that as a result of the resolution passed by respondent No. 1 on 8th of April 1980, their employment as such at the Yard has been affected. Although in para. 3 of the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 it is denied that members of petitioner's Union were engaged by respondents Nos. 2 to 7 directly, but it is admitted that they were employed by those stevedores who were engaged by respondents Nos. 2 to 7 in connection with the work of stuffing and destuffing of the containers at the Yard. Apart from it, the contentions raised in the petition are that the work done by the petitioner's member is not a `dock work' and the place where the work is done is neither a `dock' nor a 'wharf' and as such the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder are not applicable to it. It is also contended that members of petitioner not being `Dock Workers', are not bound by the resolution of respondent No. 1. On consideration of all these aspects we are satisfied that the petitioner do have a locus standi to challenge the decision/resolution dated 8-4-1980 passed by respondent No. 1 (a statutory authority) which has the effect of depriving the members of the petitioner's Union from being employed on the work connected with the stuffing and destuffing of the containers at the Yard at Karachi Port, and as such the petition is maintainable in law.
4. As to the next contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, that K. P. T. And the Karachi Harbour and Dock Workers' Union are necessary parties to this petition, we will advert to this objection later in or judgment while dealing with the contention of the parties on the merits, as it will then be appropriate in or opinion, to determine whether the presence or these parties is necessary or not to determine the controversy in this petition.
5. In order to understand the merits of the controversy in the case in its true perspective it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Act and the Scheme and the provisions of Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, in some details. In the Act, in section 2 only 'Cargo', 'Dock Worker', `Employer' and the 'Scheme' has been defined. The words `dock', `Dock Work', 'Wharf', 'Quay' and many other expressions referred to by the learned counsel at the bar during the course of arguments are not defined in the Act. Section 2(b) of the Act defines `Dock Workers' as under :- "2(6) 'Dock worker' means a person employed or to be employed in any port, on loading or unloading of ships or other vessels or on work in connection therewith."
Section 3 of the Act envisages preparation of a Scheme by the Federal Government which when framed is to provide amollgst other :
(i) The class of 'dock workers' and employers to whom it will apply.
(ii) Defining the obligation of dock workers and employers.
(iii) Regulating recruitment and entry of dock workers into scheme.
(iv)Regulating the employment and conduct of dock workers and terms and conditions of employment.
(v) Payment to dock workers during which employment or full employment is not available for them.
(4) Management of property and funds created for benefit of 'dock workers'.
(vii) Prohibiting, restricting or ,otherwise controlling the employment, of dock worker to whom the Scheme does not apply.
(ix) For training and welfare of dock worker.
(x) For health and safety measure at place where dock workers are employed."
' The words 'Dock Work' has been defined in paragraph 3(e) of the Scheme. According to this definition, 'Dock Work' means operations at places or premises to which the Scheme relates, performed by 'dock workers' of the categories to which this Scheme applies. By virtue of its paragraph 2(2) the Scheme applies to the Port of Karachi and is applicable to such descriptions of 'Dock Work' and categories of 'dock workers', as set out in the Schedule to the Scheme. In the Schedule to the Scheme, the 'Dock Work' has been stated as (i) stevedoring work at ship, wharfs, moorings or at outer anchorage including handling of passenger's baggage (other than cabin baggage) and mail stowed in the holds. The categories of 'Dock Workers' set out in the Schedule are: Wharf Serang, Ship Tindal, Winchman and Dock Worker. The definition of 'Dock Work' given in Scheme is by no means comprehensive but reading it together with the Schedule, makes it clear that Dock Work must necessarily pertain to stevedoring work either at a ship or a wharf or a mooring or at outer anchorage (we are leaving aside the handling of passengers' baggage and mail stowed in the holds as there is no controversy with regard to these in this petition. It therefore, follows that in order to make a work fall within the category of a 'dock work' it must be shown that the work so performed falls within one of the above categories of work. In the case before us the dispute relates to the stuffing and destuffing of the containers at .The yard which admittedly take place either before loading of the container on the ship or after its unloading from the ship. In order to understand the concept of stuffing and destuffing of the container which has been recently introduce at Karachi Port, it will be beneficial to understand the working of those ships on which these containers are loaded or unloaded. In order to avoid congestions at Port and to minimise the time required in loading and unloading of ships, the Karachi Port Authorities allowed calling of those modern ships at Karachi Port which had the facilities of loading and unloading through containers, which is also known as 'Roll on' and 'Roll off' carriers. These ships have not only considerably reduced the period of loading and unloading of cargo at the port but they occupy much smaller space at docks because of the stern on berthing as compared to conventional ships which take berth at docks alongside. The loading and unloading of cargo on these ships is done through containers which are stuffed in advance with the cargo. This results in saving of the time as instead of loading and unloading of individual cargo on and from the ship, these containers are loaded or unloaded as the case may be.
' It is admitted before us that after unloading of containers from the ship on its arrival at Karachi Port, they are shifted to the yard where they may be kept lying for a period exceeding 24 hours and it is there that these containers are open and the cargo contained therein is removed, firstly for the purposes of completing formalities of customs etc., and then for handing over the same to the respective consignees. Similarly the containers which are meant for shipment are already kept ready, stuffed with the cargo in advance at the yard and no sooner the ship arrives these containers are transported from the yard to the wharf and then loaded on the ship. It is this process of stuffing and destuffing of containers before their loading on a ship or after they are unloaded from ship which in controversy in this petition. The petitioner contends that it is not a 'dock work' performed at a 'wharf' while the respondent No. 1, describes it as a 'dock work' performed at a 'wharf'.
5. As the controversy in the case centres round the interpretation of the expressions 'dock work', 'wharf', the learned counsel on ,either sides after considerable length of arguments agreed that it is only the process o loading and unloading of ship or a work connected therewith, performed at a place which is either at a ship or wharf, mooring or an outer anchorage which will be called a 'dock work'. It is further agreed by the learned counsel that the place where stuffing and destuffing of containers take place is neither a ship, nor a mooring nor an outer anchorage. It is however, asserted by respondent No. 1 that the place namely the yard where stuffing and destining of container is done, fall as within the definition of "wharf", while the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and 7, maintain that it is neither a 'wharf' nor a part of the 'wharf' but is an independent place meant for storage and stuffing and destuffing of containers. In view of the controversy having been brought in this narrow compass, we feel that in order to decide this petition, we need only to decide "whether stuffing and destining of containers at the yard before loading on the ship and after unloading from a ship is a process.
6. Considering the scope of expression 'Dock Work' in the light of the controversy and the definition given in the Scheme and the Schedule appended thereto, we are clear in or minds that in order to call a particular work a "Dock Work", it must be a work performed either at the ship, or wharf, or a mooring or at outer anchorage. It is admitted before us that the work, namely, stuffing and destuffing of containers at the yard is not a work which is performed of either at ship, or at a mooring or at the outer anchorage. However, the controversy is whether the place namely the yard is a 'wharf' or not. It has been vehemently contended before us by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the yard, namely, M. I. Yard now known as new container yard, is a wharf or in any case is a part and parcel of the wharf. Mr. Obaidur Rahman the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 stated before us that the disputed place, is only about 50 to 150 paces away from the main wharf where the ship berth and discharges cargo. On the other, hand the counsel for the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 contended that the area now known as new containers yard is a huge area spread over a mile where not only the containers containing imported cargo discharged from a ship are stored, but the empty containers in which goods for shipment are to be stuffed are also kept. It is contended that this area has no connection whatsoever with the wharf where the ships berth and discharge cargo or in other words where the actual loading and unloading of the ship is done. In order to find out whether the disputes are namely the yard is a 'wharf' or part of a 'wharf' it is necessary to find out what is meant by a 'wharf'.
7. The word 'wharf' has not been defined in Act IX of 1974 or in the Scheme framed thereunder. The word 'wharf' has also not been defined in the K. P. T. Act of 1886 (Bombay Act VI of 1886). It is therefore necessary in order to understand the true meaning and import of the word 'wharf' to refer to the dictionary meaning of the word 'wharf', before referring to decided cases. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (4th Edition) the word 'wharf' has been defined as "a broad place near to a Creek or the of water, upon which goods and wares are laid, which are to be shipped and transported from place to place". It is further defined as "a place contiguous to water, used for the purpose of loading and unloading and over which goods pass in loading and unloading". It also defines "wharf" as "a shed which is a part of the platform alongside which ships are moored for loading and unloading and regularly used for that purpose and not as an independent store, may be regarded as part of the wharf". In English Oxford Dictionary the word 'wharf' has been defined as "a substantial structure of timber, stone, built along the water edge so that ship may lie along side of loading and unloading". In Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, the word 'wharf' has been defined as "a structure of wood or stone sometimes roofed over built at the shore of the harbour, river etc. For ships to lie alongside as during loading and unloading pier, dock." Since the words, Dock, Wharf and Quay, are all related to civil engineering it will be useful to refer to the definition of this word as defined in Technical Dictionary. In McGraw-Hill "Dictionary of Scientific and Technical terms" Second Edition (an American publication) the word 'wharf' is defined as "a structure of open construction built parallel to the shoreside used by vessel to receive and discharge passenger and cargo". A review of the definition given above makes it abundantly clear that the 'wharf is a structure either of wood or of stone or the masonry which is built in the nature of a raised platform, along the side of the water or a shore where the ships berth and remain for the time being during the process of loading and unloading of the cargo and over which the cargo passes during unloading or loading of a ship. It is essential to a wharf that goods should be in transit over it. The primary idea is that it is a place used not for storage of goods but in the process of their transit to or from water. Now, considering the respective contentions of the learned counsel in the light of the above definition, we feel no difficulty in holding that the place, namely, container yard (old M. I.
Yard) where stuffing and destuffing of container is done is not a 'wharf' in ordinary sense. Mr. Obaidur Rehman the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 however, contended that since the place is in close proximity of a 'wharf', it should be held to be a part of the 'wharf'. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel. In or view in order to hold a place as part of a 'wharf', it must also possess the characteristics of a 'wharf', namely, the ship could lie alongside it during the process of loading and unloading and that the goods could pass over it during that process. Even according to learned counsel the disputed place is about 50 to 150 paces away from the actual 'wharf' where ship lie during loading and unloading of cargo, and that the containers which are to be loaded on the ship or which are unloaded from the ship sometime remain in store at the yard for days together. We are unable to see how in these circumstances the place could be held to be a 'wharf' or a part of the 'wharf'. There is an additional reason, which has persuaded us not to hold the place, namely "the new container's yard" as a 'wharf'. It is admitted by the learned counsel on either side that the place which is subject of controversy in the petition has been newly constructed and is named as "new container's yard". The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and 7 pointed out that under Karachi Port Trust Act, it is necessary that any area which has been newly constructed or completed in order to qualify to become a 'wharf' 'Quay', Jetty or 'Pier' for landing or shipping goods from and in seagoing vessels it must be declared so under section 33 of the Karachi Port Trust Act by the Board with the previous sanction of Federal Government in three consecutive numbers of official Gazette. It will be useful here to reproduce section 33 of K. P. T. Act to appreciate the contention of learned counsel :- "33. When any wharf, quay, stage, jetty or pier has been made and completed, with sufficient warehouses, sheds and appliances for landing or for shipping goods from and in seagoing vessels the Board may, with the previous sanction of the (Central Government), by a notification published in three consecutive numbers of the (Official Gazette) declare that such wharf, quay, stage, jetty or pier is ready for receiving, landing and shipping or for landing or for shipping, as the case may be, goods from and in seagoing vessels. From and after such publication, the Board may from time to time, when there is room at such wharf, quay, stage, jetty or pier, order to come alongside of such wharf, quay, stage, jetty or pier, for the purpose of landing and shipping goods or for landing or for shipping the same, as the case may be, any seagoing vessel within the port which has not commenced to discharge cargo, or which, being about to take in cargo, has not commenced to do so. In making such order the Board shall have regard, as far as possible, to the convenience of such vessel, and of the shippers, in respect of the use of any particular wharf, quay, stage, jetty or pier."
' The above provisions in the K. P. T. Act besides making the compliance of this section a condition precedent for treating a newly-constructed 'wharf' 'quay', etc., as such 'wharf' or 'quay', is of great help and assistance in understanding as to what pleas could fall within the meaning of a 'wharf', 'quay', etc. To us, it appears, that in the contemplation of this section, only such a place could be declared as a 'wharf' where ship could lie alongside during the process of loading and unloading.
We accordingly asked the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 if any such notification as is envisaged by section 33 of K. P. T. Act has been issued by the Board with previous sanction of Federal Government, but the learned counsel was unable to reply or produce any such notification, declaring the "new container's yard" as a 'wharf'. We are accordingly of the view that the area known as 'new containers' yard (old M. I. Yard) is not a 'wharf' as commonly understood in the ordinary parlance.
' At this stage it will be quite useful to refer to some of the decided cases on the point which deals with the definition of 'wharf' and places forming part of it. We will first refer to a recent decision from Queen's Bench Division of England, Carter v. Port of London Authority. The dispute in this case arose as a result of injury sustained by a Truck Driver as a result of an accident which took place on a "ramp" close to the wharf. The action was brought against the Port of London Authority for breach of statutory duty under the Docks Regulations, 1934, which enjoined on the Authority for proper maintenance of regular approach on a 'dock', 'wharf' or 'quay' and every word place on shore. The contention raised in the case was that ramp was a part of 'wharf' and as such the authority was liable for damages for breach of statutory duty. The claim on the basis of breach of statutory duty was not accepted as the ramp was held not a part of the 'wharf'. The passage dealing with the contention appears at page 586 of the report and it will be advantageous to reproduce it here :- "So it is necessary to consider whether this ramp was in fact a part of a dock, wharf or quay or the edge of a dock, wharf or quay, because unless it was part of a dock, wharf or quay it could not be a dangerous part and unless it was an edge it could not come within any part of the rest of the sub- para. There is no definition of dock, wharf or quay in the regulations or in any authority to which I have been referred. Dictionaries do not always give adequate guidance for the purpose of construing regulations of this kind but for what it may be worth the Concise Oxford Dictionary gives as a primary meaning of wharf.1
(A) Wooden or stone platform beside which (a) ship may be moored for loading or (un)loading.
And a quay,
(A) Solid stationary artificial landing place . . . . Lying alongside or projecting into the water for (un)loading ships.
' A Dock in its primary meaning, according to that dictionary, is, a basin with floodgates in which ships may be loaded, unloaded or repaired ; ' Although it can also mean a range of dock basins with wharfs and ,faces, but usually, the dictionary says the word is used in the plural when it has that meaning.
' The only way in which this could be said to be part of a dock, wharf or quay is that there was a quay not very far away shown on the argued plan in this action. It is 25 ft. From the top of the ramp to the nearest point of what is marked on the plan as a quay and it is 50 ft. From the top of the ramp to the edge of the water which is indicated on the plan by the word "dock."
' As I see it, it is a matter of fact and impression to decide whether this part of the premises can be said also to be part of the quay or part of the dock. The view 1 have formed is that it is not part of the quay or part of the dock. I have already indicated that it leads into an area where there are a garage and workshops. It is somewhat further away from the nearest point of the quay than the boundary of B Shed. My view, if it be necessary to express one is that this ramp was not part nor was it an edge of a dock, wharf or quay.
' The next case on the point is Jarvis v. Hay's Wharf, Ltd.. This was also a case for compensation for injury sustained by a person while working on an unfenced gantry in a warehouse on quay. The claim was based on breach of statutory duty under Docks Regulations, 1934. The Court after considering the contention of the parties reached the following conclusions at pages 333-334 of Report :- "Mr. Tudor Evans, however, submitted that the L. 5 gantry and the L Warehouse constituted either singly or together a wharf, and that the Regulation accordingly applied. He relied upon Kenny v.
Harrison and another (1902) 2 K B 168, p. 172 as establishing that a Wharf does not have to be contiguous to the water side, and on Ellis v. William Cory & Son Ltd. (1902) 1 K B 38 as showing that a floating hulk or pontoon might be a sharf if it fulfilled some, at all events, of the functions of a wharf, albeit that such wharf or pontoon was moored out in the river well away from the shore. He admitted that Kenny v. Harisson and another and Haddock v. Humphrey (1900) 1 Q B 609 showed that the question was largely one of facts in each case. Since one of the main functions of a sharf was the provisions of space into or on to which goods might be unloaded from a ship, he submitted that the L Warehouse was a wharf, since it fulfilled this function, and argued that it was immaterial in law that it was in fact a tall building.
' Mr. Forrest submitted that both on the phraseology of Regulation 1 as a whole, and also according to the ordinary meaning of the word "wharf" neither L Warehouse nor L. 5 Gantry was a wharf. I should add these further findings of primary fact, namely that what is known as Willsons' Wharf consists of a stretch of the river front, the quayside adjacent to it with travelling cranes upon it, and 14 or more warehouses of which L is one, all belonging to the defendants, Hay's Wharf, Ltd., who were freeholders of the land in question. While for certain purposes in colonial speech the whole complex is known as Willson's Wharf, I do not think that this determines whether the Warehouse or the L. 5 Gantry was a wharf for the purposes of Regulation 1. My attention was drawn by Mr. Forrest to what was said by Lord Justice Somervell in Bath and another v. British Transport Commission, (1954) 1 W L R 1013 at p. 1015, where he made the following remarks : ' One is sometimes tempted to construe perfectly familiar words, but if they are, as these words are, perfectly/familiar, all one can do is to state whether or not one regards them as apt to cover or describe the circumstances in question in any particular case."2 I have been referred to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary for such assistance as that volume can provide in relation to its definition of the word "wharf". The first meaning there ascribed to the word is : "1. A substantial structure of timber, stone, etc. Built along the water's edge, so that ships may lie alongside for loading and unloading.
2. (a) An embankment, mole, or dam
(c) The bank of a river ; also, a gravel or sandbank
(e) A place raised or otherwise marked out on which anything is deposited for subsequent removal to another place."
I also thought it might be helpful to refer to what the dictionary has to say by way of defining the word "quay" and the definition in the dictionary of that word is : "An artificial bank or landing-place, built of stone or other solid material, lying along or projecting into a navigable water for convenience of loading and unloading vessels."
' It plainly is not easy to distinguish between a wharf and a quay, and to a very considerable extent the two words no doubt overlap in meaning. Personally, I should find it difficult to describe a wooden creation in the sea or a river at which ships discharge as a quay, I should feel no difficulty in describing it as a wharf. Apart from that differentiation personally I find it difficult to distinguish validly between the meanings of the two words. In my judgment giving the word "wharf" in this Regulation its natural meaning, the word does not cover the L Warehouse or the L. 5 Gantry. I think it would be placing a quite unnatural meaning on the word to hold that it included a quay.
9. We now pass on to consider the other contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the process of stuffing and destuffing of containers falls within the meaning of the expression "dock work". In order to make a work fall within the category of a "dock work" in or opinion it must be shown that it has relation or connection with the loading and unloading of the ship besides being a work which is to be performed at the "wharf", "mooring" or at an "outer anchorage". The Schedule to the Scheme referred to, by us, earlier, in the judgment also gives the description of the "dock work" as stevedoring work at ship, wharf, mooring and outer anchorage. It is accordingly clear that besides being loading and unloading of ship, the work must necessarily be performed at one of the places mentioned in the Schedule to the Scheme before it is treated as "dock work". It therefore follows that if the work is performed at a place other than those mentioned above and is neither loading nor unloading of ship or work connected therewith, it cannot be classed as a "dock work".
The definition of a "dock worker" as given in Act IX of 1974, itself contemplates, that a "dock worker" is a person employed or to be employed on any part on loading and unloading of ships or other vessels of or on work in connection therewith. (The underlining is by us).
' Paragraph 37 of the Scheme restricts the performance of "dock work" only, by a `registered dock worker". It also prohibits a registered employer under the Scheme to engage or employ any worker other than a registered "dock worker" on a `dock work'. The provision clearly tends to create a monopoly with regard to the performance of "dock work" only by a limited and specified class of workers namely "the registered Dock Worker". Such provision, in or view, will be subject to the rule of strict construction; and should a controversy arise with regard to the nature of a particular work, namely, whether it is a "dock work" or not, then unless the disputed work is shown to fall strictly both within the letter and spirit of the relevant provision, it will not be held to be a "dock work".
' It is not disputed before us that the stuffing and destuffing of the containers respectively is done much before and after the containers are loaded or unloaded from the ship. It is also not disputed before us that the process of stuffing and destuffing of the containers as may take several days before and after the loading and unloading of containers. Considering all these above respects, it leaves us in no doubt, that it is only the loading and unloading of the ship or vessel and a work connected therewith which can be called a 'dock work' and which alone is to be performed by a "registered dock worker" in terms of the Scheme. To us it appears that the expression "unloading of ship" in the present context will mean the process commencing from removal of containers from the ship, their transportation and passage through the 'wharf' and termination on depositing or storing of the containers at the yard. The further process of destining of containers by removing the cargo therefrom for formalities of custom and delivery to respective consignees cannot in or opinion be termed as unloading of a ship so as to make it a 'dock work'. Similarly the stuffing of a container which admittedly takes place much before the arrival of the ship at the 'wharf' or a 'dock' cannot be described or treated as loading of a ship so as to make it a 'dock work'. In this case, in or opinion, the loading of a ship will mean and start from the point the containers are put in the process of shifting/transportation from the yard towards 'wharf' and will terminate when these containers are put on board the ship which is waiting for loading at the "wharf".
[Here in italics] ' To the extent indicated above, which constitute loading and unloading of ship, the process alone can be treated as 'dock work'. Any other process or work which may be applied or performed with respect to these containers either prior to their removal to a ship for loading as the yard, or after their removal to a ship for loading at the yard, or after their removal and storage upon unloading from the ship at the yard, will not fall within the meaning and category of "dock work" so as to make it obligatory to be performed by a 'registered dock worker' alone as contemplated under Act IX of 1974 and the Scheme framed there under. .
' Before parting with this point, we may here refer the case of British Steel Corporation v. National Dock Harbour Board. In this case the iron ore imported at the port of Talbot by ship after discharge from the ship holds was stored in a store yard through conveyor belt and boonstacker. A reference was made to Industrial Tribunal to define whether the work beginning with the work done in the holds of the ships discharging at jetty and ending with work done in the primary a dock yard were 'dock work' within the meaning of the Dock Worker Employment Scheme, 1967. The Court held that the expression "discharging from ship" included continuous operation from holds of the ship until the ore comes to rest in the dockyard, having been deposited there by primary 'boon-stacker'. It was accordingly held that this continuous process of work was a 'dock work' and this alone is to be performed by the 'dock workers'.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 very strenuously argued that since the work of stuffing and destuffing of the container is performed at a place which is within the bounded area of K. P. T. It can only be done and performed by a "registered dock worker", we are afraid, we cannot accept this contention of the learned counsel as th application of the Act and the Scheme is only restricted to cover such classes of work which will fall within the definition of 'dock work' and such work alone is to be performed by the "registered dock workers". The Act and the Scheme do not contemplate that all types of work within the area of the K. P. T. Or Port is of necessity to be performed be a 'registered dock worker'. We have reached the conclusion that the work of stuffing and destuffing of the container do not fall within the meaning of the 'dock work' as it is not a process of loading or unloading of the ship; and the place where stuffing and destuffing of these container take place is not a 'wharf', and therefore, we hold that the impugned resolution passed by the respondent No. 1, directing that the stuffing an destuffing of the container can only be performed by the "registered doe I workers", s without any lawful authority and of no legal effect.
11. In view of or foregoing conclusion on the merits of controversy in this petition, we feel that Karachi Harbour and Dock Workers' Union or the Karachi ,Port Trust, are not necessary parties and as such it is not necessary to join them, in this petition, which can be effectively decided without their presence. This will dispose of the second objection ot respondent No, I raised in the petition.
10. The result is that this petition is allowed the impugned resolution dated 8-4-1980 passed by respondent No. 1, directing performance of work of stuffing and destuffing of containers at New* 3 Container Yar (Old M. Y. Yard) by 'Registered Dock Worker' only is declared without an lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, in the circumstances o the case there will be no order as to costs. 1974 Lloyd's L R 583 1967 Lloyd's L R 329 [Here italics] (1970) 2 Loyd's L R 137