Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd December 1963.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
1. The Associated Cement Staff Union (In C. A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1963) 2. The Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Bombay (In C. A. Nos. 3 to 5 of 1963) Appellant
Versus
1. The Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Bombay (In C. A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1963) 2. The Workmen employed by Respondent No. 1 who are not represented by Appellant No. 1. (In C.A. Nos. 1 and 2 1963) 3. The Workmen (In C. A. Nos. 3 to 5 of 1963), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1 to 5 of 1963. 915
Advocates appeared
Mr. Madan G. Phadnis, Advocate and M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., for Appellants (In C. A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1963) and the Respondents (In C. A. Nos. 3 to 5 of 1963); Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Respondents (In C. A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1963) and the Appellants (In C. A. Nos. 3 to 5 of 1963).
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 10(4) - WORKING HOURS - CHANGE OF - JUSTIFICATION - WAGES - FIXATION OF - RELEVANCE OF WORKING HOURS - RES JUDICATA - PRINCIPLE OF - APPLICABILITY TO INDUSTRIAL ADJUDICATIONS - HOLIDAYS - REDUCTION OF - JUSTIFICATION - NUMBER OF HOLIDAYS TO BE OBSERVED BY INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS.
Fact of the Case:
The Associated Cement Company Ltd. proposed to increase the working hours of its workmen from 34-1/4 to 37-1/4 per week and to reduce the number of holidays observed by it. The workmen challenged the increase in working hours and the reduction in holidays.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal was justified in increasing the working hours to 36 per week, as it had considered all relevant factors, including the need for leisure on the part of the workmen, the effect on their efficiency, and the prevailing hours of work in similar concerns. The court also held that the Tribunal was justified in reducing the number of holidays from 21 to 16, as it was necessary to increase the country's productivity.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in increasing the working hours from 34-1/4 to 36 per week? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the number of holidays from 21 to 16?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal was justified in increasing the working hours to 36 per week, as it had considered all relevant factors, including the need for leisure on the part of the workmen, the effect on their efficiency, and the prevailing hours of work in similar concerns. The court also held that the Tribunal was justified in reducing the number of holidays from 21 to 16, as it was necessary to increase the country's productivity. 2. The court held that the Tribunal was justified in reducing the number of holidays from 21 to 16, as it was necessary to increase the country's productivity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the workmen's appeals and allowed the Company's appeal on the question of holidays.
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : The subject matter of these five appeals is two disputes between the Associated Cement Company Ltd., and their workmen. The appeal which has been numbered C. A. No. 1 of 1963 and the two appeals numbered C. A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1963 are on the question of working hours for the workmen. The first of these is by the workmen and the other two by the Company. The appeal Nos. 2 and 3 of 1963 are on the question of holidays - one being by the workmen and the other by the Company.
2. For many years, it appears, the working hours of this Company were from 10 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 5.45 p.m. on week days and from 10.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. on Saturdays. The total working hours thus were 34-1/4 hours. In a dispute raised by the workmen in 1950 the demand was made for the reduction of working hours on week days by 15 minutes every day, i.e., 10 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. with one hour s recess. The disputes was referred to a tribunal and the demand was rejected. In Reference No. 111 of 1959 disputes arising out of the demands of the workmen as regards revision of wages, dearness allowance and certain other matters were referred to Shri M. R. Mehar, Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Though the question of revision of working hours was not the subject matter of the reference, the Company in its written statement submitted that the hours of work of the employees should be rationalised by increasing them and bringing them in line with those of other establishment and pleaded that the Tribunal might be justified in making an award raising the hours of work in that very reference under sub-s. (4) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Shortly after this, the petitioner company gave a notice of change on November 23, 1959 proposing to increase the hours of work from 34-1/4 to 37-1/4 per week, changing the office timings from 10 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 5.45 p.m. on week days and 10 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. on Saturdays. This question of change of hours of work was thereupon referred for adjudication in Reference No. 247 of 1959. Another Reference (No. 97 of 1961) was later made by the Government as regards the question of working hours on the demand of workmen for reduction of the working hours. That demand was that the working hours and working days should be from 10.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on week days with an hour s recess and 10.30 to 1.30 p.m. on Saturdays. The award of the Tribunal is that weekly hours of work be increased to 36 - it being left of the Company to fix the actual working hours on week days and Saturdays after consulting the Union. The Tribunal also directed that if at any time the Company and the Union agree it would be open to the Company to have a five-day week arrangement and in that case the hours of work might be 36-1/4 hours. The workmen in their appeal challenge this increase of working hours to 36 while the Company in their appeals contend that the Tribunal was wrong in rejecting their prayer for increasing the working hours to the extent as prayed for by the Company.
3. The first contention raised by Mr. Ramamurthi in support of the workmen s appeals is that having fixed the wages of the workmen on the basis of the existing working hours of 34-1/4 hours in its award in Reference No. 111 the Tribunal was not justified in changing the working hours without making a change in the wage rates. It is argued that this increase in the working hours without an increase in the wage rates amounts really to a gift of a considerable sum of money to the Company, as but for this increase the workmen would have been entitled to overtime payment for the additional hours they will have to work under the present award. This argument seems to us to be misconceived. It is not the function of industrial adjudication to fix the working hours with an eye to enabling the workmen to earn overtime wages. Hours of work have to be fixed in consideration of many factors including the question of fatigue on the health
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
