The Posts and Telegraphs Department is not a commercial undertaking and does not carry on business or commercial activity. Therefore, the Motor Service maintained by the Department is not a motor transport undertaking within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, and the Department is not a private carrier.

(1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, who is an employee working as a motor driver in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, claims a writ of mandamus against the Respondent (Postmaster General, Bombay Circle) directing him to enforce the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to the Posts and Telegraphs Motor Service, Bombay. The only purpose of the petition is that the Respondent should not prescribe more than 8 hours duty on any day and 48 hours duty in any week for the drivers of motor vehicles employed in the Posts and Telegraphs Motor Service.

(2) The petitioners main contention is that the Posts and Telegraphs Department is a commercial undertaking. The Department runs the Motor Service in order to convey mails from and to different Post Offices in Greater Bombay. The Department employs drivers, who are required to work on this Motor Service. These drivers are required to work for 8 hours and 40 minutes every day and 52 hours every week. Under the provisions of the above Act, admittedly, it is not permissible to employ drivers of motor vehicles so as to make them work for more than 8 hours every day and more than 48 hours every week. The Petitioners contention is that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the Motor Service maintained by the Department. It is, therefore, not justifiable that the Respondent should make the petitioner or other drivers employed in the Motor Service of the Department to work for the hours, which are in excess of the prescribed hours under the Act.

(3) The Respondents contention is that the Department is not a commercial undertaking. In fact, provisions of the Act are not applicable to the Department. The petitioners contention is, therefore, untenable.

(4) In connection with these rival contentions, It is first necessary to notice the provisions in Sections 1 (4), 2(e), 2(g), 2(h), 13 and 38 of the Act, which run as follows :

"1. (4) It (the Act) applies to every motor transport undertaking employing five or more motor transport workers :

Provided

2. (e) employer means, in relation to any transport undertaking, authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the motor transport undertaking, and;

2(g). motor transport undertaking means a motor transport undertaking engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward, and includes a private carrier;

2(h). motor transport worker means a person who is employed in a motor transport undertaking to work in a professional capacity on a transport vehicle and includes a driver,

2(n) all other words and expression used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act."

The substance of Section 13 is that no transport worker shall be required or allowed to work for more than eight hours in any day and forty-eight hours in any week. Section 38 provides for exemptions in respect of certain transport vehicles and also authorises for State Government to grant exemption from the provisions of the Act in respect of certain motor transport workers.

(5) The petitioners main contention is based on the provisions in Section 2(g) of the Act. It is however, not the petitioners case that the Motor Service maintained by the Department carries passengers or goods by road for hire or reward. The first part of the provisions in Section 2(g) is admittedly not applicable to the Motor Service maintained by the Department. The main contention of the petitioner accordingly is that the Motor Service maintained by the Department is maintained as a "private carrier" and is, therefore, motor transport undertaking within the meaning of Section 2(g). It is for this reason that the petitioner contends that the provisions of the Act apply to the Motor Service maintained by the Department. The Act does not define "a private carrier". Admittedly, for finding, out the meanin