SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 474

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., A.N. RAY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
The Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Appellant
Versus
The Workmen, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 391 of 1972, D/- 28-9-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Niren De, Attorney General for India, (Mr. B. Dutta, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. M. C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. P. H. Parekh and Mrs. S. Bhandare, Advocates, with him), (for No. 1) and M/s. P. S. Kheri and S. K. Nandi, Advocates, (for No. 2), for Respondents.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 136 - Industrial Disputes Act – Section 9-A - Pay factory allowance – Compensation – Working hours - This is an appeal by special leave from Award of National Industrial Tribunal - While granting special leave this Court directed that costs of the respondents should in any event be paid by appellant - Appellant, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, has several Projects and workshops in country - At Baroda it has a central workshop which controls all the workshops in the western region - Workmen are liable to be transferred for exigencies of service from one workshop to another as also from one region to another - With this shifting of the office to site of factory working hours of administrative staff were fixed with an interval of one hour - These facts are not in dispute - Whether fixation of 8 hours of work per day is otherwise objectionable and working hours have been rightly reduced by Tribunal to 61/2 hours a day – Held, respondents learned counsel, has submitted that this Court should not interfere with conclusions of Tribunal under Article 136 of Constitution as those conclusions are based on appreciation of evidence - However erroneous they may be, according to learned counsel it is not the practice of this Court to interfere with such conclusions - In court view Tribunal has not only made some contradictory observations about practice prevailing in other projects of Oil and Natural Gas Commission but has also misread the statement of (M. W. 1) - Result, is that this appeal succeeds and allowing same court set aside award reducing the working hours from 8 to 61/2 hours per day in the Baroda Central Office and also set aside the order granting compensation at 10 per cent of the salary - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

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.

2. 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 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 ?

(3) If so, to what reliefs are the workmen entitled ?

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 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 ?

(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.

3. The appellant, the Oil and 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 Dec., 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 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 61/2 hours per day and complained that fixation of 8 hours per day with effect from June, 1965 was violative of Section 9-A of the Industrial Dis




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top