P&H HC Rejects Haryana Roadways Conductor’s Plea Against Over-8-Hour Long-Route Duty, Citing Consent And Overtime Pay

The petitioner, a conductor employed at the Haryana Roadways Depot, Jhajjar, sought prohibition against requiring him to work beyond the limits prescribed by the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (“MTW Act”), and mandamus to enforce the Act and directions in earlier High Court cases.

He alleged that conductors were required to work beyond eight hours a day, without proper compliance with the statutory requirements concerning hours of work and notice of hours.

The State responded that the petitioner undertook long-route duties with his consent, received overtime wages, was granted weekly rest, and could be assigned a route involving duty within eight hours if he did not wish to work a long route.

The State also submitted that duty hours were displayed at the bus stand through bus timetables.

Section 2(f) of the MTW Act defines “motor transport worker” to include a conductor.

Section 13 ordinarily limits an adult motor transport worker’s work to eight hours a day and 48 hours a week, while permitting specified exceptions for long-distance routes and other notified occasions, subject to the prescribed authority’s approval and maximum limits of ten hours a day and 54 hours a week; it also addresses exceptional breakdowns or interruptions.

Section 18 concerns the display and maintenance of a notice of hours of work, Section 19 provides for weekly rest, and Section 26 provides for overtime wages.

The Court also considered *Pardeep v. State of Haryana & Others*, CWP-24481-2021, decided 2 December 2021, which emphasized compliance with statutory limits, prevention of driver fatigue, and appropriate rest arrangements where long stretches of duty are unavoidable.

The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claim on the record before it. It relied on the respondents’ assertions that long-route work was undertaken with the petitioner’s consent, that overtime was paid, and that weekly rest was provided; the petitioner had not produced documentary material to contradict the State’s position concerning displayed duty hours.

The Court considered that some long routes could not be completed within eight hours and that Haryana Roadways provided an essential public service, but stressed the importance of public safety and avoiding chronic fatigue.

It treated the earlier *Pardeep* decision as supporting a practical approach that accommodates long-distance duties while requiring safeguards, including additional rest and breaks; it also noted the respondents’ stated provision of a half-hour break after every five hours of driving.

It noted the respondents’ position that long-route duties were consensual and compensated, and that motor transport workers received a half-hour break after every five hours of driving.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.