Lokesh vs State Of Haryana And Others

IN TH


209



Lokesh



State of Ha


CORAM: HON

Present:- Mr. R
for th

Mr. P



NIDHI GUPTA, J .

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN
D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-12460
Date of De
0-2026 (O&M)
ecision:- 30.10.2026

… Petitioner
Versus
aryana and others
... Respondents
N'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
A
Raywant Kaushish, Advocate
he petitioner.
Parveen Mehta, Addl. A.G. Harya
ana.

Prese
ent Civil Writ Petition und
er Articles 226/227 of the
e
Constitution of In
ndia has been filed by the petitio
oner for issuance of a writ in the
e
nature of "Prohib
bition" prohibiting the responde
ents from taking work from the
e
petitioners beyon
nd the hours in a day prescribe
ed under Sections 13 and 18 of
f
the Motor Transp
port Workers Act, 1961 and in v
view of the directions issued by
y
this Hon'ble Cou
rt in CWP No.24481 of 2021 t
titled as 'Pardeep Vs. State of
f
Haryana & Othe
ers ' vide order dated 02.12.2021
1 (Annexure P-6) and CWP No.

6921 of 2023 titl
led as Surajbhan and others Vs
Vs State of Haryana and others
s
vide order dated
10.08.2023 (Annexure P-7); and
further for issuance of a writ in
n
the nature of 'M
andamus' directing the respon
dents to act in accordance the
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.02 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-12460-2026

provisions of the
6 (O&M) - 2 -
Motor Transport Workers Act,
1961 (Annexure P-4) and rules
s
thereunder.
2. It is
inter alia submitted by ld. cou
nsel for the petitioner that the
e
petitioner is wor
rking as a Conductor in the Ha
ryana Roadways Depot, Jhajjar.
.
His services are
governed by the Haryana Tra
ansport Department Group 'C'
'
Haryana Roadwa
ays Service Rules, 1995. These
Rules were framed under the
e
Motor Transport
Workers Act, 1961 (Annexure
P-4) (hereinafter referred to as
s
‘MTW Act, 1961’
’) to regulate the services of t
the employees of the Haryana
a
Transport Depart
ment, including employees of t
he operations staff which come
e
under definition
of 'Transport Workers' as defi
ned under Section 2(h) of the
e
MTW Act.
3. Ld. c
counsel submits that as per Sect
ion 13 of the MTW Act, 1961, it
t
is provided as foll
lows: -
“13. Hours of work for adult
t Motor Transport Workers -No
o
adult motor transport worker
r shall be required or allowed to
o
work for more than eight ho
ours in any day and forty-eight
t
hours in any week:
Provided that where any su
uch motor transport worker is
s
engaged in the running of a
any motor transport service on
n
such long distance routes,
or on such festive and other
r
occasions as may be notified i
in the prescribed manner by the
e
prescribed authority, the emp
ployer may, with the approval of
f
such authority, require or allo
ow such motor transport worker
r
to work for more than eight
hours in any day or forty-eight
t
hours in any week but in no ca
ase for more than ten hours in a
a
day and fifty-four in hours in a
a week, as the case may be:
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.02 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-12460-2026

6 (O&M) - 3 -
Provided further that in th
he case of a breakdown or
r
dislocation of a motor trans
sport service or interruption of
f
traffic or act of God, the e
employer may, subject to such
h
conditions and limitations as
may be prescribed, require or
r
allow any such motor transpo
rt worker to work for more than
n
eight hours in any day or mor
re than forty-eight hours in any
y
week.”
4. It is
submitted that ‘motor transpo
rt worker’ is defined in Section
n
2(f)(3)(h) as follow
ws:-
“motor transport worker" mea
ans a person who is employed in
n
a motor transport undertaking
g directly or through an agency,

whether for wages or not, to
work in a professional capacity
y
on a transport vehicle or to
attend to duties in connection
n
with the arrival, departure,
loading or unloading of such
h
transport vehicle and include
es a driver, conductor, cleaner,
,
station staff, line checking s
taff, booking clerk, cash clerk,
,
depot clerk, time-keeper, watc
chman or attendant, but except
t
in Section 8 does not include.”
”
(i) any such person who is emp
ployed in a factory as defined in
n
the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of
1948);
(ii) any such person to whom t
the provisions of any law for the
e
time being in force regulatin
ng the conditions of service of
f
persons employed in shops
or commercial establishments
s
apply:”
5. Ther
refore petitioner, who is work
king as Conductor, falls under
r
definition of mo
tor transport worker. Ld. cou
nsel submits that, however, in
n
direct contravent
tion of the above provisions, re
espondents are taking the duty
y
beyond 08 years
hours a day from the petition
ner, which is in violation of the
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.02 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-12460-2026

provisions of the
6 (O&M) - 4 -
MTW Act, 1961. Sometimes in
some cases duty is taken from
m
motor transport w
workers up to 14 hours a day jeo
opardising the safety of not only
y
of the occupants
of the buses but also of the oth
her users of the road. Thus, the
e
respondents are
not implementing the provisio
ons of the MTW Act, 1961, in

letter and spirit.
6. Ld. c
counsel further submits that res
spondents are taking duty from
m
the petitioner b
eyond 8 hours a day as pres
scribed, and that too without
t
compliance of the
e provisions of Section 18 of the
e said Act, which requires every
y
employer of Moto
or Transport Workers to display
and correctly maintain a 'Notice
e
of Hours of Work
'.
7. It is
contended that the non-comp
pliance of the above provisions
s
amounts to phys
ical and financial exploitation o
f the employees working in the
e
Transport Depart
tment in the State of Haryana
as, neither is actual overtime
e
being calculated,
let alone being paid to the Moto
or Transport Workers.
8. Acco
ordingly prayed that the presen
nt writ petition be allowed and

that “ a writ in th
e nature of "Prohibition" be issu
ued prohibiting the respondents
s
from taking work
k from the petitioners beyond
the hours in a day prescribed
d
under Sections 13
3 and 18 of the Motor Transport
t Workers Act, 1961 and in view
w
of the directions
issued by this Hon'ble Court in C
CWP No.24481 of 2021 titled as
s
'Pardeep Vs. State
e of Haryana & Others' vide ord
der dated 02.12.2021 (Annexure
e
P-6) and CWP N
No. 6921 of 2023 titled as Sura
ajbhan and others Vs State of
f
Haryana and oth
hers vide order dated 10.08.20
023 (Annexure P-7), further for
r
issuance of a writ
t of 'Mandamus' directing the re
espondents to act in accordance
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.02 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-12460-2026

the provisions of
6 (O&M) - 5 -
f the Motor Transport Workers
Act, 1961 (Annexure P-4) and
d
rules thereunder .”
”
9. Per
contra , ld. State counsel has
opposed submissions of the
e
petitioner and h
as submitted that in complian
ce of Section 19 of MTW Act,
,
1961, petitioner h
has been allowed weekly rest in
n every 7-day period. Moreover,
,
petitioner is not s
sent on long routes without his c
consent.
10. Ld. S
State counsel also refutes con
tention of the petitioner with
h
regard to Section
n 18 of the MTW Act, 1961, to
submit that duty hours of the
e
Motor Transport
Workers are duly displayed on
n the bus stand in the shape of
f
timetable of bus
ses. It is further submitted tha
at drivers and conductors who
o
agree to go on lo
ong routes get extra wages, TA/
/overtime. Accordingly prays for
r
dismissal of the p
present writ petition.
11. No o
other argument is made on be
ehalf of the ld. counsel for the
e
parties. I have h
eard the ld. counsel and perus
sed the case file and record in
n
detail. I find no m
merit in the submissions advance
ed on behalf of the petitioner.
12. A pe
erusal of the record of the case
e shows that it is the categoric
c
case of the respo
ondents that petitioner was not
posted on long distance routes
s
without his cons
ent; and that whenever petitio
oner was posted on such long-
-
distance routes,
he was paid overtime. Respond
dents have further categorically
y
stated that in ter
rms of Section 19 of the 1961 A
Act, petitioner was also granted
d
weekly rest. Relev
vant extract of the written state
ement dated 11.08.2026 filed on
n
behalf of respond
dents No. 1 to 3 making averme
ents to the above effect in their
r
preliminary subm
missions, is as follows:-
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.02 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-12460-2026

6 (O&M) - 6 -
“1.Th
hat as per Section 13 of The
Motor Transport Workers Act,

1961
1, where any such motor trans
sport worker is engaged in the
e
runn
ning of motor transport service
on such a long distance routes,

or on
n such festive and other occas
sions as may be notified in the
e
presc
cribed manner by the prescribe
ed authority, the employer may
y
with
the approval of such authorit
ty require or allow such Motor
r
Tran
sport Worker to work for more
than eight hours in a day or 48
8
hour
rs in any week but in a no case f
for more than ten hours in a day
y
and f
fifty four hours in a week as the
case maybe. The petitioner was
s
on d
duty on long distance routes, s
so he was allowed to work for
r
more
e than eight hours in a day and
d accordingly he was paid extra
a
wage
es for overtime as per Sectio
n 26 of The Motor Transport
t
Work
kers Act, 1961.
2. Th
hat the petitioner was allowed
weekly rest in every seven-days
s
perio
od as per Section 19 of The Mot
tor Transport Workers Act 1961.

The p
petitioner was doing duty on lon
ng routes with his consent and if
f
he do
oes not want to go on long routs
s his duty will be put on another
r
route
e having duty of within eight hou
urs.”
13. It is,
but trite that some long rout
es cannot be covered within 8
8
hours. It is only in
n such circumstances that respo
ondents are taking duty beyond
d
8 hours from the
e drivers and conductors. It is a
also to be appreciated that the
e
Transport Depart
tment is part of essential State
services in providing transport
t
service to the pu
blic at large. As such, such duty
y is in public interest. Moreover,
,
the drivers and c
conductors are permitted to go
on long routes only with their
r
prior consent, fo
r which drivers and conductors
s get extra wages, TA/overtime.
.
Thus, the employ
yees who render such overtime/
/extra duty are paid extra wages
s
for overtime. Res
spondents have further clarified
that on long routes, driver and
d
conductor are allo
owed half-an-hour break after e
very 5 hours of driving.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.02 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-12460-2026

14. Even
6 (O&M) - 7 -
n further, duty hours of the Mo
otor Transport Workers are duly
y
displayed on the
e bus stand by way of bus t
timetables. The petitioner has
s
produced no doc
cumentary proof to controvert
t the above said stand of the
e
respondents.
15. Furth
hermore, in a similar matter, p
person similarly situated as the
e
present petitione
er, namely Pardeep, had filed a C
Civil Writ Petition No.24481 of
f
2021 t itled as Pa
ardeep Vs. State of Haryana &
others , which was disposed of
f
vide order dated
02.12.2021 (Annexure P-6). Re
levant extract of the said order
r
reads as follows:-
-
“5. I
I have heard the rival contenti
ions of learned counsel for the
e
parti
ies and also perused the impugn
ned order dated 20.11.2018.
6. It s
seems that the intent of order d
dated 20.11.2018 (Annexure P-3)
)
here
in is not to deny the drivers of
f the aforesaid statutory rights
s
whic
ch are in larger general public in
nterest so as to avoid accidents
s
being
g caused due to physical and/or
r mental fatigue caused by long
g
stret
tches of driving. At the same tim
me, the intent of impugned order
r
seem
ms to be to curb the unnecessa
ary race amongst the drivers to
o
indul
lge in working overtime so as t
to earn extra money but at the
e
same
e time defeat the very purpose o
of avoiding the accidents caused
d
due
to fatigue. Needless to say
that working overtime would
d
natu
urally result in working beyond th
he hours as envisaged under the
e
statu
ute (supra).
7. As
s regards certain stretches whic
ch may require a driver to drive
e
for
12 hours as has been allege
ed in the impugned order is
s
conc
cerned, the same seems to ha
ave been taken care of in the
e
penu
ultimate part of the impugne
ed order, relevant whereof is
s
extra
acted herein below:
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.02 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-12460-2026

6 (O&M) - 8 -
“For example if the driv
vers and conductors of a bus do
o
their duty for 12
hours for up and down
n
Panchkula/Chandigarh
to Delhi, in that condition that
t
drivers and conductors c
can be given two days work rest
t
with one weekly holida
y and for the rest of three days
s
other drivers and cond
ductors can be deployed on this
s
rotation or the drivers a
and conductors can be deployed
d
alternatively with gap
of one day so that duty hours
s
may not exceed beyond
d 48 hours in a week. It is also
o
made clear that suffici
ient drivers and conductors are
e
available with most of t
the General Manager to run the
e
run-able buses still they
y are requested to send demand
d
for additional drivers an
nd conductors have been made
e
to comply the directi
ions to zeroise the overtime
e
expenses vide letter No.
2052/T.1-4 dated 20.11.2018."
8. A
perusal of the above would rev
veal that ordinarily the work to
o
be ta
aken from driver is not to excee
ed 48 hours per week and on a
a
certa
ain day when a driver is deputed
d at a stretch, from destination A
A
to de
estination B which may take mor
re than 10 hours of driving, then
n
the a
aforesaid explanation, as given
in the penultimate part of the
e
orde
er would come into play, in order
r to take care of his fatigue.
9. Th
hat apart, Section 13 of the Act
(supra) also makes it very clear
r
that
no driver is to drive at a stret
tch of more than 08 hours and
d
cann
not be made to drive more th
han 48 hours in a week. It is
s
expe
ected of the competent authority
y that the impugned order shall
l
be im
mplemented in letter and spirit,
without violating the aforesaid
d
man
datory provisions and in the
e ordinary course the drivers
s
emp
loyed by the transport departm
ment would be made to drive on
n
day-
to-day basis not beyond 10 hou
rs and in that manner, 48 hours
s
be st
taggered over a week.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.02 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-12460-2026

6 (O&M) - 9 -
10.
Needless to say, when on
long stretches the aforesaid
d
expla
anation would entitle a driver to
o take extra rest as stated in the
e
Impu
ugned order itself, apart from b
being given half an hour break
k
after
r every 05 hours of driving.
11.
The writ petition stands dis
sposed of with the aforesaid
d
obse
ervations accordingly.”
16. Thus
s, the Coordinate Bench has al
lso taken note of all the steps
s
taken by the res
spondents in a realistic, pragm
matic, and equitable manner to
o
ensure complianc
ce with the statute while also re
endering efficient public service
e
by considering e
every aspect of the matter. Ne
eedless to say, public safety is
s
paramount for w
which it is necessary that motor
transport workers do not work
k
themselves to ch
ronic fatigue. It is for this reason
n that the respondent Transport
t
Department does
s not send Motor Transport Wo
orkers on long routes only with
h
their prior consen
nt. Simultaneously, it cannot be
e lost sight of that the Transport
t
Department prov
vides essential services to the
public at large; and the long-
-
distance routes c
can sometimes not be complete
ed within period of 8 hours. In
n
such cases, the d
drivers and conductors/Motor
Transport Workers are given a
a
break of half an h
hour after every 5 hours of drivin
ng; besides overtime payment.
17. In v
view of the above facts, the
present writ petition stands
s
dismissed .
18. Pend
ding application(s), if any, also st
ands disposed of.

30.10.2026
Neelam
( N

NIDHI GUPTA )
JUDGE


Wheth

Wheth
her speaking /reasoned Yes / N
her Reportable Yes / N
No
No
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.02 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document