Judicial review does not extend to economic policy unless it violates law or principles of fairness. Compliance with statutory provisions is essential in administrative actions.

1This original petition is filed to quash Ext. P3 said to be contrary to the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, Ext. P3 is the duty schedule issued to the workmen of the first respondent. Their case is espoused by petitioners 1 and 2 union. The averment in the petition is that there was a conciliation settlement viz. P1 which was valid upto 1-2-1990 and that was modified by another conciliation settlement Ext. P2 on 28-12-1990. In sub clause 14 of Clause.37 of Ext. P2 it is stated that all existing provisions which are not modified by agreement will continue to operate as such. Therefore, even though the term of settlement evidenced by Ext. P1 expired on 1-2-1990 the same will remain in force by virtue of Ext. P2 agreement aforementioned. The contention of the petitioners is that Ext. P3 reschedule is in violation of the provisions of the two agreements and therefore, Ext. P3 is illegal. If that alone was there I would have dismissed the petition in limine. But it is stated that Ext. P3 is in flagrant violation of the Motor Transport Workers Act. S.13 of the Motor Transport Workers Act provides that no adult motor transport worker shall be required or allowed to work for more than eight hours in any day and forty eight hours in any week. In cases where motor worker is engaged in the running of any motor transport service, on long distance routes etc. more than eight hours in any day or forty eight hours in any week can be allowed but in no case for more than ten hours in a day and 54 hours in a week. S.37(1) of the Act says that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the commencement of the act. The proviso therein stipulates that if the motor transport worker is entitled to some benefits that cannot be denied and the worker shall continue to get the same. Counsel for the petitioner referred to me Ext. P3 schedule especially duty No. 2 and submitted that at a stretch a worker is made to work 11.30 hours in steering duty with a spread over time of 14.30 hours. It is seen that the duty hours starts at 2 P. M. and the day will end with 12 midnight and for the next day for another 10 hours the workman is made to work. In that way strictly S.13 of the Act has been complied with. That means he is made to work only 10 hours in a day and in no case more than 54 hours in a week. It is submitted that the workman is made to work below 40 hours in a week Hence there is a strict compliance with the law. S.13 restricts the hours of work per day to 10 hours but taking a day commencing from 2 P. M. and making him to work at a stretch for more than 13 or 14 hours will not be strictly in compliance with the spirit of the Act. Law may be an ass bat its administration is not asinine. In human wrongs will not be tolerated by judiciary conscious of human rights and Rule of law. Hence, I thought a deeper probe is called for. But it is seen even under the existing work schedule the workmen were working more than 10 hours and the violation was there even in the existing schedule covered by Exts. P1 and P2 settlements. None of the workmen appeared before this Court and only the union espousing their cause filed the petition. Added to that there is the fact that except the workmen in Ernakulam and Trivandrum area, all others have accepted the duty as per revised schedule. Therefore, when the petition came up for admission I issued notice to respondents to show cause why the petition should not be admitted. The existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act by itself would not prevent me from admitting the petition because if the statute is violated and when the policy of the enactment is clear I would be forsaking a great tradition, if I say I am helpless to entertain the writ petition because of the existence of alternate remedy. It is for the purpose o