IMPORTANT POINTS
It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, and the discretion should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternative remedy available to the appellant.
2. Differential treatment, per se, does not constitute violation of Article 14. It denies equal protection only when there is no reasonable basis for differentiation

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950-Article 14-Writ Petition filed by appellants complaining of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution –Plea of appellants that those Typist-cum-Computer Clerks who had been appointed in Mumbai Port Trust prior to 1.11.1996 had to work for six and half hours a day, whereas Typist-cum-Computer Clerks like appellants who had been appointed after 1.11.1996 had to work for seven and half hours excluding lunch break - Reason that had been given by respondent-Port for adopting the practice of prescribing different working hours for Typist-cum-Computer Clerks recruited after 1.11.1996 was the change in situation, change in technology, desire to bring in uniformity in working hours of the personnel working on indoor establishment and out door establishment- For achievement of object i.e. bringing in uniformity in duty hours of the personnel working on indoor establishment and out door establishment, respondent- Port classified persons working on the indoor establishment for purpose of duty hours into two classes, basis for classification being the date of their appointment, and object being to become competitive in business and efficient- The policy decision of Port could not be said to cause any prejudice to the interest of the personnel recruited after 1.11.1996 because before their recruitment they were clearly given to understand as to what would be their working hours, in case they accept the appointment- Introduction of new policy was a bona fide decision of the Port, and the acceptance of conditions with open eyes by appellants and recruits after 1.11.1996 showed that they could now have no grievance.-Since the classification with reference to the date of appointment of typist-cum-computer clerks was for the purpose of bringing about uniformity in working hours of the personnel working in indoor and outdoor establishments, and its aim was to make the organization competitive and efficient, it could not be said that it was unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution- Also, avoidance of labour disputes is a reasonable basis for the Classification-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 40 to 57)
       Facts of the Case :
        Writ Petition was filed by appellants herein in the instant case complaining of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution .Plea of appellants that those Typist-cum-Computer Clerks who had been appointed in Mumbai Port Trust prior to 1.11.1996 had to work for six and half hours a day, whereas Typist-cum-Computer Clerks like appellants who had been appointed after 1.11.1996 had to work for seven and half hours excluding lunch break .
       Findings of the Court :
        Reason that had been given by respondent-Port for adopting the practice of prescribing different working hours for Typist-cum-Computer Clerks recruited after 1.11.1996 was the change in situation, change in technology, desire to bring in uniformity in working hours of the personnel working on indoor establishment and out door establishment. For achievement of object i.e. bringing in uniformity in duty hours of the personnel working on indoor establishment and out door establishment, respondent- Port classified persons working on the indoor establishment for purpose of duty hours into two classes, basis for classification being the date of their appointment, and object being to become competitive in business and efficient. The policy decision of Port could not be said to cause any prejudice to the interest of the personnel recruited after 1.11.1996 because before their recruitment they were clearly given to understand as to what would be their working hours, in case they accept the appointment. Introduction of new policy was a bona fide decision of the Port, and the acceptance of conditions with open eyes by appellants and recruits after 1.11.1996 showed that they could now have no grievance. Since the classification with reference to the date of appointment of typist-cum-computer clerks was for the purpose of bringing about uniformity in working hours of the personnel working in indoor and outdoor establishments, and its aim was to make the organization competitive and efficient, it could not be said that it was unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Also, avoidance of labour disputes is a reasonable basis for the Classification. Appeal was Dismissed
       Result : Appeal Dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Article 14 of the Constitution (the equality provision) is a slippery slope, and a fine balancing act must be done by the Court to avoid slipping down the slope.

3. As observed by Lord MacMillan in ‘Law and Ethics’ 49 Scot. L. Rev.61, 69 (1933):

“The judiciary is constantly confronted with the necessity of making a choice between a legal principle which is sought to be applied in a particular case, and the choice which it makes in the particular instance resulting inevitably in the expansion or restriction of the principle applied or rejected.”

4. The judicial process is thus not a bucket of readymade answers, but a process, or technique, for easing an endless flux of changing social tensions. This is illustrated in this case.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. This Special Leave Petition has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 9th October, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.3059 of 1999.

7. The appellants had filed a writ petition in the High Court complaining of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that those Typist-cum-Computer Clerks who had been appointed in the Mumbai Port Trust prior to 1.11.1996 have to work for six and half hours a day, whereas Typist-cum-Computer Clerks (like the appellants) who have been appointed after 1.11.1996 have to work for seven and half hours (excluding lunch break). This, it was alleged, violates Article 14 of Constitution.

8. The appellant no.1 is a registered Trade Union, which represents the employees of the respondent no.1 - Mumbai Port Trust, a body corporate constituted under Section 3 of the Major Port Trusts Act. The appellant nos.2 and 3 are working as Typist-cum- Computer Clerks with the respondent no.1 and were appointed to that post after 1.11.1996. The case of the appellants, in short, is that as regards the employees who were recruited as Typist-cum-Computer Clerks before 1.11.1996, their duty hours are six and half hours per day, whereas for the personnel who were recruited as Typist-cum- Computer Clerks after 1.11.1996 they are seven and half hours. According to the appellants, this is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The appellants also claim that this practice is contrary to Clause 24 of the settlement dated 6th December, 1994 reached between the employees Union and the respondent Port, and also violates Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellants prayed that either their duty hours be reduced by one hour, or else they be given overtime allowance for one hour.

9. The reply of the respondent-Port is that the duty hours of the Typist-cum-Computer Clerks recruited before 1.11.1996 is seven hours per day, which includes half an hour lunch break, while the duty hours for the Typist-cum-Computer Clerks recruited after 1.11.1996 it is eight hours per day with half an hour lunch break. Thus, according to the respondent no.1, the difference in the duty hours of the personnel recruited before 1.11.1996 and after 1.11.1996 is one hour. According to the respondent no.1, though there is no settlement reached in this behalf, as a matter of practice and usage the duty hours of the personnel in indoor establishment was six and half hours. However, due to change in the technology and with introduction of privatization and setting up private Ports with whom the respondent-Port has to compete, the respondent-Port decided as a policy to have uniform working hours for the personnel working on the indoor establishment and the out door establishment. It is claimed that from the beginning so far as personnel working on out door establishment are concerned, their duty hours were seven and a half hours and therefore, to bring about uniformity in the duty hours of the personnel working on the indoor establishment and out door establishment, a policy decision was taken to change the duty hours of personnel working in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 1092

2010 (7) Supreme 1036SUPREME COURT OF INDIAMarkandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. — AppellantsversusMumbai Port Trust & Anr. — RespondentsCivil Appeal No.9753 of 2010(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.4391 of 2010)Decided on : 15-11-2010

Cases Referred (15)

2010 (7) Supreme 1036
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Mumbai Port Trust & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.9753 of 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.4391 of 2010)
Decided on : 15-11-2010