Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE WORKMEN
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/09/1972
BENCH:
DUA, I.D.
BENCH:
DUA, I.D.
SIKRI, S.M. (CJ)
RAY, A.N.
CITATION:
1973 AIR 968 1973 SCR (2) 482
1973 SCC (3) 535
CITATOR INFO :
D 1975 SC1856 (8)
ACT:
Industrial Law---Industrial Tribunal--Working Hours of
Administrative staff--Management’s competence to
fix--Reduction of working hours by tribunal--Circumstances
justifying interference.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant has several projects and workshops in the
country. At Baroda it has a central workshop which controls
all the workshops in the western region. The workmen are
liable to be transferred for exigencies of service from one
workshop to another as also from one region to another. At
Baroda, when the workshop was under construction and there
was insufficient accommodation at the site of the workshop,
the office/administrative staff used to work in a shed at a
distance of about 2 k.m. from the workshop. At that time
the working hours of the administrative staff were from 10
a.m. to 5 p.m. with an interval of half an hour. These
working hours lasted from December, 1964 to June, 1965, when
on completion of the construction at the site of the work-
shop the administrative staff shifted there. With the
shifting of the office to the site of the factory the
working hours of the administrative staff were fixed from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. with an interval of one hour. The- workmen
claimed that working hours of the administrative staff
should have continued to be 6 1/2 hours per day and
complained that fixation of 8 hours per day with effect from
June, 1965 was violative of s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes
Act. It was further complained that the fixation of 8 hours
per day was not justified from the point of view of
convenience and was also at variance with the practice
uniformly prevailing in other administrative offices of the
workshops of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission.
The tribunal came to the conclusion that there was nothing
to show that it was a condition of service of the employees
in the administrative office to work only for 61 hours per
day and that there was no uniform practice of working either
for 6 1/2 hour-, only or for 8 hours, for office staff, at
all places. In the opinion of the Tribunal, therefore,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
there was no presumption of there being any condition of
service either way. on this reasoning Section 9A of the Act
was held inapplicable to the case of the workmen at Boroda.
The tribunal also observed that it was not correct that the
factory would suffer if the working hours of the clerical
staff in the Baroda workshop were reduced from 8 hours to 6
1/2 hours a day. But the Tribunal accepted the submission
of the workmen that Industrial law recognises the
distinction between workers in factories and workers in
office and hence though under the Factories Act the workmen
may be asked to work for 48 hours or 8 hours a day, it does
not necessarily follow that the clerical staff should also
be made to work 8 hours a day when they had been working for
only 6 1/2 hours a day from December 1964 to June 1965.
’The Tribunal also directed payment of overtime compensation
at 10% of pay to the office administrative staff for the
extra work taken from thorn.
483
Allowing the appeal,
HELD: (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case it
cannot be said that 6 1/2 working hours a day was a term of
service, for the simple reason that it was only during a
period of the first six months, when the factory was being
constructed that the administrative office-staff was, as an
interim arrangement, temporarily located at a place 2 k.m.
away, that the staff in this office was not required to work
for more than 6 1/2 hours per day. There is no evidence
that 6 1/2 hours per day was a condition of service; neither
is there any such term of service in their letters of
appointment, nor is such a term of service otherwise
discernible from other material on record. [487 H]
(ii) The Tribunal has wrongly interfered with the
appellant’s decision in fixing the hours of work which was
fully within its competence and was not open to any valid
objection. The Tribunal has not only made some
contradictory observations about the practice prevailing in
the other projects of the Appellant but has also misread the
statement on record. The conclusions of the Tribunal are,
therefore, tainted with serious infirmity justifying
reappraisal of the evidence by this Court for coming to its
own independent conclusion on such appraisal.
(a) The management must have full power and
discretion in fixing the working hours of the
administrative staff within the limits
prescribed by the statute. When the change in
the working hours is covered by s. 9A read
with the First Schedule of the Act, compliance
with the section would undoubtedly be
necessary for its sustenance. In the present
case s. 9A is not attracted. It was only when
the factory was completed and the
administrative staff attached to it shifted to
its own building at the factory site, that the
management, apparently on an overall
assessment of its requirements, fixed 8
working hours per day. This was within the
competence of the management. [491 H]
(b) The view of the tribunal that reduction
in the hours of work of the office staff from
8 to 6 1/2 hours would not adversely affect
the working is not supported by evidence on
the record. [493 F]
(c) The Tribunal was also not right in
saying that in other projects the working
hours of administrative office are 6 1/2
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
hours. According to the material on record
working hours- in these offices vary and there
is no uniform practice. But the fact that in
some of the other offices the working hours
are 6 1/2 hours per day, cannot be the
determining factor. The office at Baroda
being the controlling office its requirements
and exigencies of work are such that fixing of
8 hours of work a day is fully justified. The
mere fact that the staff at Baroda is liable
to transfer to other projects is of little
importance.[493 F]
(iii) Once it is found that 8 hours a day has been
properly fixed for work in the administrative office there
can be no question of payment of any compensation, for
working for 8 hours a day in the past. [494A]
484
Workmen of B.O.A.C. v. B.O.A.C., [1962] 1 I.L.J. 257 and
Nawabganj Sugar Mills v. Its Workmen, [1964] 1 L.L.J. 750,
held inapplicable.
May & Baker (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1961] II L.L.J. 94,
Workmen of Hindustan Shipyard (P) Ltd. v. industrial
Tribunal, Hyderabad, [1961] H L.L.J. 526 and Associated
Cements Staff Union v. Associated Cement Company Ltd.,
[1964] I L.L.J. 12, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 391 of 1972.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated November 18,
1971 of the National Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi in
Reference No. NIT 4 of 1970.
Niren De Attorney,-General for India and B. Dutta, for the
appellant.
M. C. Bhandare, P. H. Parekh and S. Bhandare, for respon-
dent No. 1.
P. S. Kheri and S. K. Nandi, for respondent. No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DUA, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the award of
the National Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi dated November
18, 1971. While granting special leave on February 24,
1972, this Court directed that costs of the respondents
should in any event be paid by the appellant.
By notification dated August 21, 1968 (No. S.O. 3088) the
Central Government constituted a National Industrial,
Tribunal at Dhanbad with Shri Kamal Sahai as the Presiding
Officer and referred to it for adjudication the following
industrial dispute
SCHEDULE
"(1) Whether the demand of the workmen that
the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Baroda,
should stop the extra hours of work which is
being taken from the office administrative
staff in workshop and fix their working hours
on the lines of those of the office staff of
the Commission is justified ?
(2) whether the demand that the Commission
should pay compensation to the administrative
staff for the extra hours of work taken from
them from June, 1965, at the overtime rate or
pay Factory allowance at the rate of 20 per
cent of the pay to the office administrative
staff, who have been asked to work for 8 hours
from June, 1965 is justified’?
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
(3) If so, to what reliefs are the workmen
entitled ?"
485
As a result of the retirement of Shri Kamal
Sahai, the Central Government on December 10,
1970 referred the said dispute to the Tribunal
presided over by Mr. Justice N. Chandra. On
the pleadings of the parties the learned
Tribunal settled the following. issues for
determination :
"(1) Whether the demand of the workmen that
the Oil & Natural Gas Commission, Baroda
should stop the extra hours of work which is
being taken from the office/administrative
staff in workshop and fix their working hours
on the lines of those of the office staff of
the Commission is justified ?
(2) Whether the demand that the Commission
should pay compensation to the administrative
staff for the extra hours of work taken from
them from June, 1965, at the overtime rate or
pay factory allowance at the rate of 20 per
cent of the pay to the office/administrative
staff who have been asked to work for 8 hours
from June 1965 is justified ?
(3) If so, to what reliefs are the workmen
entitled ?
(4) Was there a valid and binding settlement
between the parties on 20th January, 1968 as
alleged ? If so, is the Reference beyond the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal ?
(5) Are the demands of the staff working in
Purchase, P & D and Accounts sections and
Stores Department not covered by the present
Reference and beyond the jurisdiction of this
Tribunal ?"
Issues 4 and 5 were not pressed before us by the learned
Attorney General. The principal controversy in this Court
is thus confined to issues nos. 1 to 3.
The appellant, the Oil & Natural Gas Commission, has several
projects and workshops in the country. At Baroda it has a
central workshop which controls all the workshops in the
western region. The workmen are liable to be transferred
for exigencies of service from one workshop to another as
also from one region to another. At Baroda, when the
workshop was under construction and there was insufficient
accommodation at the site of the workshop, the
office/administrative staff used to work in a shed at a
distance of about 2 k.m. from the workshop. At that time
the working hours of the administrative staff were from 10
a.m. to 5 p.m. with an interval of half an hour. These
working hours lasted from December, 1964 to June, 1965, when
on completion of the construction at the site of the
workshop the administrative staff shifted there. With this
shifting of the office to the site of
486
the factory the working hours of the administrative staff
were fixed from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with an interval of one
hour. These facts are not in dispute. The workmen claimed
that working hours of the administrative staff should have
continued to be 6 1/2 hours per day and complained that
fixation of 8 hours per day with effect from June, 1965 was
violative of s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act
(hereinafter called the Act). It was further complained
that the fixation of 8 hours per day was not justified from
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
the point of view of convenience and was also at variance
with the practice uniformly prevailing in other adminis-
trative offices of the workshops of the Oil & Natural Gas
Commission.
The Tribunal, came to the conclusion that there was nothing
to show that it was a condition of service of the employees
in the administrative office to work only for 61 hours per
day. There was no term to that effect in the appointment
letters of employees. The contention that since the workmen
had as a matter of fact been working from December 1964 till
June 1965 for only 6 1/2 hours a day, it had become a
condition of their service was also repelled. The Tribunal
observed that the mere fact that while the workshop was
under construction and there was not enough accommodation
for the office/administrative staff in the workshop building
at the site, they were accommodated in another building
which worked there along with other clerks for only 6 1/2
hours a day for a period of six month does not mean that
61/2 hours a day was a condition of their service. The
Tribunal was also not satisfied that the administrative
staff in all the projects of the Oil & Natural Gas
Commission worked only for 6 1/2 hours per day. It was
pointed out that in the Jammu project three persons of the
administrative staff worked for 9 hours including one hour’s
rest interval and two persons for 8 1/2 hours including
half-an-hour’s rest interval. In the headquarters central
auto-workshop, DehraDun, three persons of office staff
worked for 8 1/2 hours, including half an hour’s rest
interval. In the Cauvery project some clerks work for 81
hours including half an hour’s rest interval. In other
projects of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission, the
administrative staff is working 6 1/2 hours or less than 8
hours excluding rest interval. After referring to these
instances the Tribunal observed that there was no uniform
practice of working either for 61 hours only or for 8 hours,
excluding rest intervals, for office staff, at all places.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, therefore, there was no
presumption of there being any condition of service either
way. On this reasoning S. 9A of the Act was held
inapplicable to the case of the workmen at Baroda.
The Tribunal next dealt with the contention that the change
in the hours of work was not justified from the point of
view of
487
convenience and that the workmen being transferable all over
the country and the pay scales being similar, hours of work
in the Baroda workshop should not have been changed from 6
1/2 hours, including half an hour rest interval to 9 hours,
including rest interval for one hour. It was successfully
contended by the workmen that though under the Factories Act
the workmen may be asked to work for 48 hours a week or 8
hours a day, it does not necessarily follow that the
clerical staff should also be made to work 8 hours a day
when they had been working for only 6 1/2 hours a day from
December 1964 to June 1965. Emphasis was laid on behalf of
the workmen on the submission that industrial law recognises
the distinction between workers in factories and workers in
offices. This approach found favour with the Tribunal. The
workmen further contended that the management had wrongly
claimed that work in the factory would suffer by reducing
the working hours of the clerical staff from 8 hours to 61
hours. The Tribunal also agreed with this submission,
basing its conclusion on the evidence of Shri S. Hassan
(M.W. 1). In the case of time-keepers and the store-
keepers, however, the Tribunal felt that reducing the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
working hours in their case would prejudicially affect the
working of the factory. The contention on behalf of the
management that change in the working hours of the clerical
staff from 8 hours to 6 1/2 hours is likely to give rise to
dissatisfaction among other workers was repelled on the
ground that in case of two projects, namely, Cambay and
Navagaon, the working hours of the clerical staff were less
than those of the technical staff. According to the
Tribunal the technical staff generally works for 8 hours a
day while the clerical staff in many projects of the
workshop itself work only for 61 hours a day.
Dealing with issue no. 2 the Tribunal observed that com-
pensation at the rate of 10 % of pay to the office
administrative staff (excluding time-keepers and store-
keepers) was justified for the period for which they were
made to work for 8 hours a day.
On appeal the learned Attorney General has assailed the line
of reasoning and the conclusion of the Tribunal. On behalf
of the respondent also the conclusion of the Tribunal that
there was no term or condition of service fixing the daily
working hours of the administrative staff at 61 hours was
questioned. It was contended on their behalf that it was a
term of their service that they should work only for 6 1/2
hours per day, and, therefore, change from 61 hours to 8
hours per day without proper notice was violative of s. 9A
of the Act.
In our opinion, on the facts and circumstances of this it
cannot be said that 6 1/2 working hours a day was a term of
service,
488
for the simple reason that it was only during a period of
the first six months, when the factory was being constructed
at the site of the workshop that, due to shortage of
accommodation, the administrative office was, as an interim
arrangement, temporarily located in tests at a place about 2
k.m. away, that the staff in this office was not required to
work for more than 6 1/2 hours per day. There is no-
evidence that 6 1/2 hours per day was a condition of
service; neither is there any such term of service in their
letters of appointment, nor is such a term of service
otherwise discernible from other material on the record. As
soon as the construction at the site of the factory was
complete and the workshop was ready to start its normal and
regular working, the administrative office was shifted to
its permanent abode at the site of the factory. It was then
that the proper regular working of the administrative office
and its staff started at the site of the factory with
working hours being appropriately fixed at 8 hours per day
so as to facilitate efficient functioning of the workshop to
the expected capacity.
The Tribunal dealt with the part of the case in these words
"There is nothing to show that it was a
condition of service that an employee would
work 6 1/2 hours only. Nor is there anything
to that effect in the appointment letter of
the employee. Nor is it a condition of
service that he would work 8 hours. There is
nothing to that effect either in the
appointment letter.
The contention on behalf of the workmen is
that since they had been working from December
1964 till June 1965 only for 6 1/2 hours a
day, it had become a condition of their
service. This contention is without force.
The mere fact that while the workshop was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
under completion and there was not enough
accommodation for the office/administrative
staff in the workshop building, they were
accommodated in another building and worked
there along with other clerks for only 6 1/2
hours in a day for a period of 6 months, will
not make it a condition for their service."
Nothing cogent has been urged against this reasoning with
which we are in complete agreement. Incidentally, looking
at the terms of reference also it is clear that no specific
dispute was raised by the workmen on the basis of any claim
that the term of their employment to work only for 61 hours
per day had been varied without the requisite notice under
S. 9A. This challenge against the award by the respondents
is accordingly repelled.
489
The controversy indeed mainly rests on the question whether
fixation of 8 hours of work per day is otherwise
objectionable and the working hours have been rightly
reduced by the Tribunal to 6 1/2 hours a day and whether the
Tribunal has rightly directed payment of overtime
compensation at 10 % of pay to the office administrative
staff (exclusive of time-keepers and store-keepers) for the
extra work taken from them in the past. The rival
contentions raised before the Tribunal on this aspect may be
stated in the words of the Tribunal itself :
"The next contention on behalf of the workmen
is that the change in the hours of work was
not justified from the point of view of
convenience and that services are
transferable all over the country and pay
scales are one and the same and that
consequently the hours of work in the Baroda
workshop should not have been changed from 7
hours including half an hour’s rest interval,
to 9 hours including one hour’s rest interval.
There is no doubt that a change has been made
in June 1965 from 61 hours of work to 8 hours
of work after the staff was shifted to the
workshop premises. The contention on behalf
of the management is that the Factories Act
applies to the workshops and that consequently
the management is not doing anything wrong in
asking the administrative staff in the
workshop to work for 8 hours. It is also
contended by the management that if this is
not done, the work in the workshop will
suffer."
The Tribunal noticed that under the Factories Act a workman
may be required to work for 48 hours a week but in its view
"it does not necessarily follow that the clerical staff
should also be made to work 8 hours a day although they had
been working only 6 1/2 hours a day from December 1964 to
June 1965" for even in the case of working shifts, many
shifts work for less than 8 hours a day. The Tribunal,
after referring to the decision in the Workmen of B.O.A.C.
v. B.O.A.C. (1) and to the decision in Nawabganj Sugar
Mills v. Its Workmen (2) observed that it was "a question
for consideration whether in the other projects of the ONGC
itself and other offices in Baroda, the Administrative
Office staff was made to work 8 hours a day or only 61 hours
a day." According to the Tribunal the technical staff
generally works for 8 hours a day whereas the clerical staff
in many of the projects of the workshop itself works only 6
1/2 hours a day. The Tribunal also observed that it was not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
correct that the factory would suffer if the working hours
of the clerical
(1) [1962] 1 I. L J. 257
(2) [1964] 1 I. L. J. 750.
490
staff in the Baroda workshop were reduced from 8 hours to 61
hours a day. For this conclusion reference has been made in
the award to the statement of M.W. 1 Shri S. Hassan, Deputy
Manager (Establishment).
The learned Attorney General has submitted that the ratio of
the decision in the B.O.A.C. case (supra) to which the Tri-
bunal has referred in the award does not support the view
taken by it. Our attention has been invited to the
following passage in that judgment -
"It is in the light of all these features of
the service expected of the appellants that we
have to consider the question as to whether
the tribunal was right in fixing the weekly
hours of work at forty-eight. It is clear
that until 1964 there was no occasion to pres-
cribe the weekly hours as such because the
extent and volume of the work did not justify
any such fixation. Sometimes, employees in
the three respective categories were not
required to do as much weekly work as was
regarded as normal. Sometimes, if the work
was heavier and the vagaries of the arrival or
departure of the aircraft imposed additional
burden, the normal working hours were
exceeded. Until 1964 no question of payment
of overtime wages arose. In 1954, the
respondent started paying overtime wages in
the manner already indicated. Therefore, the
question as to whether in fixing forty-eight
hours as the normal working hours in a week,
the tribunal has committed an error must be
judged not so much by a reference to the
existing normal working weekly hours but by a
reference to the principles which generally
apply to the fixation of weekly working hours.
In our opinion, judged in that way, it would
be difficult to sustain the argument of the
appellants that forty eight hours in a week is
either unduly reasonable (unreasonable ?) or
excessive. That is why we do not think that
the general argument urged by the appellants
that the existing working hours should be
standardized can be accepted."
The reported case dealt with an establishment which bad
peculiar characteristics. It had three categories of
employees, one of which used to work for 36 hours and the
other for 39 hours and the third for 42 hours. The
respondent corporation in that case fixed 48 hours per week
as normal duty hours for all employees. The Tribunal had
held that the Corporation was entitled to so fix the working
hours. On appeal by the workmen, after noting the peculiar
features of the service expected of the
491
workmen, this Court made the above observation. In regard
to the office staff which had always been working for 36
hours a week it was conceded in that case that it should
work only for 36 hours a week as it used to do. This
decision, therefore, in our opinion, does not help the
respondents. Nawabgunj Sugar Mills (supra) dealing with
rationing allowance is equally-if not more-unhelpful. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
learned Attorney General drew our attention to the decision
in May & Bekar Ltd. v. Their Workmen(1) for the proposition
that it is not open to the Industrial Tribunal to reduce the
working hours either directly or indirectly where the
employer was following the working hours prescribed by a
statutory provision. In this reported case the relevant
provision of Delhi Shops & Establishments Act, 1954 fell for
consideration. Reference was also made by the learned’
Attorney General to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Workmen of Hindustan Shipyard (P) Ltd. v. Indus-
trial Tribunal, Hyderabad(2) in support of the proposition
that the management has the power to vary the working hours
within the limits prescribed by law. In that case the
provisions of the Factories Act and of the Madras Shops &
Establishments Act, 1958 fell for consideration by the
court. The learned Attorney General also drew our attention
to Associated Cements Staff Union v. Associated Cement
Company Ltd.(3) where this Court pointed out that it was not
the function of industrial adjudication to fix the working
hours with an eye to enable the workmen to earn over-time
wages and it pointed out that the various factors relevant
for fixing hours of work. The learned Attorney General
emphasised the fact that the Tribunal failed to consider the
question of adverse effect of the reduced working hours of
the office staff on production which is a relevant factor to
consider. He further contended that 8 hours a day is not
shown to impair the health of the workmen. It was also
argued that there is no general uniform pattern of 61 hours
of work per day in the offices of the other projects of the
Oil & Natural Gas Commission and that each project has its
own pattern to suit its requirements. Considerable stress
has also been laid on the submission that administrative
offices attached to all factories of the appellant have to
work for 48 hours a week., It must be particularly so in the
case of the administrative office attached to the central
workshop at Baroda which, according to the appellant’s
submission, controls all the workshops in the western
region.
In our opinion, there is merit in the learned Attorney Gene-
ral’s submission. The management must, in our opinion, have
(1) [1961] II L.L.J. 94. (2) [1961] II L.L.J. 526.
(3) [1964] I L.L.J. 12.
14-L498Sup. Cl/73
492
full power and discretion in fixing the working hours of the
administrative staff within the limits prescribed by the
statute. When the change in the working hours is covered by
s. 9A read with the First Schedule of the Act, compliance
with the said section would undoubtedly be necessary for its
sustenance. In the present case, as already observed, s. 9A
is not attracted. When the administrative office at Baroda
was temporarily located about a couple of kilometers away
awaiting completion of its permanent abode, the factory was
in the process of being constructed and there was no
question of fixing the working hours of the administrative
office on a permanent basis. Perhaps there was not even
enough work for the office staff to keep them occupied for
more than 61 hours per day. It was only when the factory
was completed and the administrative staff attached to it
shifted to its own building at the factory site, that the
management apparently on an overall assessment of its
requirements fixed 8 working hours per day. This, in our
opinion, was within the competence of the management. The
Tribunal was also, in our view, not right when it observed
that the work in the factory would not suffer by reducing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
the working hours of the clerical staff in the Baroda
workshop from 8 hours to 6 1/2 hours a day. According to
the Tribunal itself Shri Hasan had stated that he did not
think that working of the factory would be adversely affect-
ed if the timings of the general staff and the office staff
are changed with the number of working hours remaining the
same and that change of half an hour this way or that way is
done at times when required. In other words the Tribunal
itself did not understand Shri Hasan to refer to the regular
reduction of working hours by an hour and a half on a
permanent basis. We may now turn to the actual statement of
Shri Hasan (M.W. 1). He has stated :
"The Baroda workshop differs from the other
workshops of the Commission as it is a Central
Workshop and takes up major repairs and
controls all other shops in the Western
Region. There are 8 to 9 departments in the
office of the workshop. They are : (1) Office
Administration, (2) Technical Administration,
(3) Stores, (4) Accounts, (5) Transport, (6)
Security, (7) Works Manager (i), (8) Works
Manager (ii), (9) Planning and Designing. All
these Departments have different controlling
heads’.
If the hours of the staff working in the
office of the workshop are reduced, it will
adversely affect the working because the whole
work is connected. It Would certainly affect
other workshops of the Commission because
there will be agitations and dissatisfaction
in other workshops.
493
Transfers from the office of the main workshop
to other workshops offices are quite frequent.
The staff may be transferred to any part of
India. Similarly, the staff from other parts
of India may be transferred to the office of
the Baroda workshops."
The passage on which the Tribunal has relied
on for its view is :
"I do not think that the working of the
factory would be adversely affected if the
timings of the ’general shift’ and the office
staff are changed with the number of working
hours remaining the same. Change of half an
hour this way or that way is done at times
when required.
If a change is made of one hour in the timings
with the number of working hours remaining the
same, it is likely to affect adversely the
working."
This passage does not in any way attract from the
categorical statement made earlier that if the hours of the
staff, working in the office of the Workshop, are reduced,
it will adversely affect the working because the whole work
is connected. The Tribunal does not seem to have correctly
read Shri Hasan’s statement. The view of the Tribunal that
reduction in the hours of work of the office staff from 8 to
6 1/2 hours would not adversely affect the working is, in
our opinion, not only not supported by the evidence on the
record but appears to be contrary to the statement of Shri
Hasan.
The Tribunal was also not right in saying that in other
projects the working hours of administrative office are 6
1/2 hours. Working hours in these offices, according to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
material on the record, vary and there is no uniform
practice. But the fact that in some of the other offices,
the working hours are 61 hours- per day, cannot be the
determining factor. The office at Baroda being the
controlling office its requirements and exigencies of work
are such that fixing of 8 hours work a day is, in our opi-
nion, fully justified, and the Tribunal was wrong in
reducing its working hours to 6 1/2 hours a day. The mere
fact that the staff at Baroda is liable to transfer to other
projects is, in our view, of little importance. Assuming
that by transfer to some other projects the employee
concerned would have to work for 6 1/2 hours a day, that
would not, render the fixation of 8 hours a day for the
administrative office at Baroda objectionable or open to
interference by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has itself
already observed that in the other projects the working
hours in the administrative offices vary. If that is so
then this could not be a
494
cogent ground for reducing the working hours from 8 to 6 1/2
in the Central Office at Baroda. Once it is found that 8
hours a day has been properly fixed for work in the
administrative office there can be no question of payment of
any compensation, for working for 8 hours a day in the past.
The respondents’ learned counsel, Shri Bhandare, has sub-
mitted that this Court should not interfere with the
conclusions of the Tribunal under Art. 136 of the
Constitution as those conclusions are based on appreciation
of evidence. However erroneous they may be, according to
Shri Bhandare, it is not the practice of this Court to
interfere with such conclusions. In our view, the Tribunal
has not only made some contradictory observations about the
practice prevailing in the other projects of the Oil &
Natural Gas Commission but has also misread the statement of
Shri Hasan (M.W. 1). It has indeed wrongly interfered with
the appellant’s decision in fixing the hours of work which
was fully within its competence, and was not open to any
valid objection. The conclusions of the Tribunal are,
therefore, tainted with serious infirmity justifying re-
appraisal of the evidence by this Court for coming to its
own independent conclusion on such reappraisal.
The result, therefore, is that this appeal succeeds and
allowing the same we set aside the award reducing the
working hours from 8 to 6 1/2 hours per day in the Baroda
Central Offices and also set aside the order granting
compensation at 10 % of the salary. The appellant will of
course pay the costs of the respondent in this Court.
K.B.N.
Appeal allowed.
495