SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.
Workmen of the Bombay Port Trust, Appellants v. Trustees of the Port of Bombay, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 325 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. M. Rajagopalan and K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocates, with him), for Appellants. Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate, (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji. O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Respondents
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J.: This is an appeal by special leave against an award dated 20-9-1963 made by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in a reference made by the Government of India under S. 10 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellants are the workmen of the Bombay Port Trust, who are and have been represented in this dispute by the Bombay Port Trust Employees Union. The respondents to this appeal are the trustees of the Port of Bombay. The reference was made on a joint application of the parties and the matter in dispute was stated to be:
"Whether the existing system of work of the shore crew of the Prince s and Victoria Docks under which each shift consists of 8 hours normal duty, 2 hours variable recess and 2 hours overtime needs any modification?"
The Tribunal, by the award impugned here, held that the Union was not able to establish that the existing system of work needed any modification.
2. The Port Trust had under its control several docks. Reference in this judgment will be made to the Prince s and Victoria Docks, the Alexandra Docks, Butcher Island and the Flotilla Crew. These represent different areas of work where different groups of workmen were employed. From the facts appearing on the record it appears that the Trustees first introduced a two-shift system of work in the Alexandra Docks on 30-6-1953 and the same system was extended to the Prince s and Victoria Docks on 15-12-1953,. Previously, the shore crew at all these places worked in a single shift & were liable to be called out at any hour of the day or night. When the two shift system began, each shift of 12 hours was broken up into 8 hours duty. 2 hours variable recess and 2 hours overtime. The hours of rest were kept variable as they depended on the tides. In 1956 the workmen, who were then represented by the Port Trust General Workers Union, made a demand for a fixed recess of two hours. The Trustees apprehended that this was a device to get 4 hours overtime and rejected the demand. The General Workers Union was informed that if the demand was pressed a three-shift system would be introduced. The workmen then retraced their steps and accepted a 2 hours variable recess but requested that it should be as near the middle of the shift as possible. The Trustees agreed to accept the hours of rest at fixed hours in the Alexandra Docks but at the Prince s and Victoria Docks they kept it variable agreeing to fix it as near the middle of the duty hours as possible. Under this arrangement the shore crew working at the Prince s and Victoria Docks were informed each day what the period of rest would be on the following day. In explanation of this difference it may be pointed out that the Alexandra Docks work on a system of lock gates which enables the depth of water at the docks to be maintained from day-to-day except in the monsoon months when they work only at high tide. It was thus possible to fix rest hours at the Alexandra Docks for half the crew different from the rest hours of the other half so that a part of the crew was always available on hand. As the lock gates control the depth of water in the Alexandra Docks, fixed hours of rest could be maintained from day-to-day except in the monsoon months when the storm gates had some time to be closed. During these months recess time at the Alexandra Docks was also variable and was made to coincide with the closure of the storm gates. The workmen at the Alexandra Docks seems to have accepted a variable recess of two hours but the Port Trust gave a notice under S. 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25-6-1960 announcing the introduction of variable recess although in the months other than the monsoon months recess was actually at fixed hours. The workmen opposed the change from fixed to variable recess. Meanwhile studies were being made an it was found that the work hours at the different Docks were not equal; they were heavier at the Alexandra Docks t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.