# Bom6qy v. Th, workmen

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 627
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-06-09
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bom6qy-v-th-workmen-2794
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
627
PFIZER (P) LTD. BOMBAY
ti.
THE WORKMEN
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS
GUPTA
and
j. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Industrial DiBpute-Thr<e shift aystem-lntroduction ofNumber of paid holidays in a year-RedtUJtion of-Effect of
National Emergency on indUBtrial adjudication -lndiutri•l
Di•putea Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), ••· 10 (1),(d) 12 (5).
The appellant company runs a factory in which it manufactures life saving drugs such as antibiotics and anti-tubercular
drugs and vitamin prodttets. The factory was working a multiplicity of shifts with different timings. It was found that the
machinery installed in the factory was not fully utilised. The
production was inadequate and the appellant ·was not able to
meet the demand for its products. The appellant decided to
introduce three shifts in order to have extensive production of
better quality products. The preparation of the drug known
as P.A.S. required the working of the relevant sections on three
shift basis because its production was a continuous process.
The quality of the product would improve if the section working in the production of the said drug worked continuously. If
the chemical and pharmaceutical departments were to work in
three shifts, other subsidiary sections had also to work in three
shifts in order to cope with increased production.
The appellant gave a notice to the respondents that it
wanted to introduce three shifts in the factory. Conciliation
efforts failed and the matter was referred to the Industrial
Tribunal for adjudication.
The Tribunal gave its award against the appellant so far
as the introduction of the three shifts was concerned.
It held
that the introduction of three shifts would be inconvenient to
the hulk of the employees and would also involve the abolition
of five days' week. The employees would be compelled to work
at night and better quality of products will not be produced.
The Tribunal also held that the production of the drug known
as P.A.S. <lid not require continuous working in three shifts.
But the Tribunal rcrluccrl the number of holidays from 27 to IO.
1962
Nooembu 99
1962
l'fu:er (P) Ltd.
Bom6qy
v.
Th, workmen
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
Cross-appeals were filed in this Court against the decision
of the Tribunal. The company appealed against the order of
the Tribunal rejecting its demand for the introduction of three
shifts and workmen appealed against the order reducing the
number of holidays.
Held, that the appellant be allowed to introduce three
shifts in the factory. The process of manufacture of the drug
P.A.S. was continuous and as it took 20 hours, three shifts were
inevitable. In order to improve quality and avoid rejection of
a large percentage of the product, it was necessary that three
shifts must be introduced in the section dealing with it. By
introducing three shifts, both quality and quantity will improve.
Three shifts were also allowed for pharmaceutical section of
the Department which produced ointment, injections and other
pharmaceutical products. As the Department dealing in packing,
filling, washing, tablet and capsules has to keep pace with the
other two Departments, three shifts were allowed for that
Department also. The objection of the respondents that three
shifts would involve work at night and hence was not desirable,
was rejected. Another objection that the introduction of three
shifts would involve the beginning of the work at 7-20 a.m.
which was an unduly early hour for work, was also rejected.
That hour had been selected as a starting hour having regard to
the convenience of transport available in the locality. The
Court however, rejected the contention of the appellant that
because the Standing Orders contemplated the adoption of more
than one shift, it was entirely and absolutely in the discretion of
the management to make the change without due scrutiny by
Industrial adjudication. The Court also rejected the contention
of the workmen that

## Text

_Characters 0–39,968 of 52,862. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39968 for what follows._

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
627
PFIZER (P) LTD. BOMBAY
ti.
THE WORKMEN
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS
GUPTA
and
j. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Industrial DiBpute-Thr<e shift aystem-lntroduction ofNumber of paid holidays in a year-RedtUJtion of-Effect of
National Emergency on indUBtrial adjudication -lndiutri•l
Di•putea Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), ••· 10 (1),(d) 12 (5).
The appellant company runs a factory in which it manufactures life saving drugs such as antibiotics and anti-tubercular
drugs and vitamin prodttets. The factory was working a multiplicity of shifts with different timings. It was found that the
machinery installed in the factory was not fully utilised. The
production was inadequate and the appellant ·was not able to
meet the demand for its products. The appellant decided to
introduce three shifts in order to have extensive production of
better quality products. The preparation of the drug known
as P.A.S. required the working of the relevant sections on three
shift basis because its production was a continuous process.
The quality of the product would improve if the section working in the production of the said drug worked continuously. If
the chemical and pharmaceutical departments were to work in
three shifts, other subsidiary sections had also to work in three
shifts in order to cope with increased production.
The appellant gave a notice to the respondents that it
wanted to introduce three shifts in the factory. Conciliation
efforts failed and the matter was referred to the Industrial
Tribunal for adjudication.
The Tribunal gave its award against the appellant so far
as the introduction of the three shifts was concerned.
It held
that the introduction of three shifts would be inconvenient to
the hulk of the employees and would also involve the abolition
of five days' week. The employees would be compelled to work
at night and better quality of products will not be produced.
The Tribunal also held that the production of the drug known
as P.A.S. <lid not require continuous working in three shifts.
But the Tribunal rcrluccrl the number of holidays from 27 to IO.
1962
Nooembu 99
1962
l'fu:er (P) Ltd.
Bom6qy
v.
Th, workmen
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
Cross-appeals were filed in this Court against the decision
of the Tribunal. The company appealed against the order of
the Tribunal rejecting its demand for the introduction of three
shifts and workmen appealed against the order reducing the
number of holidays.
Held, that the appellant be allowed to introduce three
shifts in the factory. The process of manufacture of the drug
P.A.S. was continuous and as it took 20 hours, three shifts were
inevitable. In order to improve quality and avoid rejection of
a large percentage of the product, it was necessary that three
shifts must be introduced in the section dealing with it. By
introducing three shifts, both quality and quantity will improve.
Three shifts were also allowed for pharmaceutical section of
the Department which produced ointment, injections and other
pharmaceutical products. As the Department dealing in packing,
filling, washing, tablet and capsules has to keep pace with the
other two Departments, three shifts were allowed for that
Department also. The objection of the respondents that three
shifts would involve work at night and hence was not desirable,
was rejected. Another objection that the introduction of three
shifts would involve the beginning of the work at 7-20 a.m.
which was an unduly early hour for work, was also rejected.
That hour had been selected as a starting hour having regard to
the convenience of transport available in the locality. The
Court however, rejected the contention of the appellant that
because the Standing Orders contemplated the adoption of more
than one shift, it was entirely and absolutely in the discretion of
the management to make the change without due scrutiny by
Industrial adjudication. The Court also rejected the contention
of the workmen that because the introduction of three shifts
would make a departure from the pattern prevailing in the
pharmaceutical industry, the change could not be permitted.
The question must be considered in the light of relevant facts
adduced before the Court. In doing so, the importance and
necessity of more production must be borne in mind.
While allowing the introduction of three shifts, the Court
was influenced by the existance of emergency in the country.
As the whole economy of the country was being put on war
basis, industrial production must be geared up to meet the
require1nents of nation.
Capital, labour and industrial adjudication. must be sensitive and responsive to
the paramount
requirement of the community faced with grave danger. All
legitimate efforts made by th~ employer to produce more and
more of the goods required for the community 1nust receive the
cooperation of the employees on re-asonable terms.
-
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
629
C1v1L APPELLATE JumSDWTION : Civil Appeals
1962
Nos. 625 & 626 of l962.
Pfizer (P) Ltd,
Bombay
Appeals by
special leave from the a ward
The w"!men
dated June 9, 1962, of the Industrial Tribunal,
Maharashtra in Reference (IT) No. 16 of 1962.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India,
C. K. Daphtary,
Solicitor-General
of
India,
J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur
and Ravinder
Narain, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 625/62) and
respondent No. (in C. A. No. 626/62).
K.1'. Sule, .MadanG. Phadnis, and .Janardan
Sharrna, for the Respondent (in C.A. No. 625/62) and
the Appellant (in C. A. No. 626/62).
1962. November 30. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-Two items of dispute
Gajendragadk4r, J,
between the appellant Pfizer Private Ltd., and the
respondents, its employees, were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, by the
Government of Maharashtra under ss. 10 ((1) (d) and
12 (5) of the lndustrial Disputes Act Hl47 on the
22nd of January, 1962. Both these items arose out of
the proposed changes which the appellant wanted to
make in the terms of employment governing the
service of the respondents. The appellant proposed
to reduce the existing paid holidays to 8 instead of 27
to which the respondents were entitled because so
long, the appellant has been giving to its employees
the benefit of public holidays as declared under the
Negotiable Instruments Act. This was the first item
of dispute between . the parties. ThP. second item of
dispute was in regard to re-fixation of the hours of
work. The appellant desired to introduce three shifts
in most of its departments and accordingly it had
given a notice of change under s. 9A of the Industrial
1962
Pfiw (P) Ltd.
Bombay
•.
T/1e workmen
&'ajcndragadkar, J.
030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l\Jf'i3] SUPP.
Disputes Act. Both these proposed changes were
resisted by the respondents. The Tribunal has rejected the appellant's case for the introduction of three
shifts in its factory and this part of the award is
challenged by the appellant by its appeal No. 625 of
1962.
In regard to the appellant's claim for reducing the paid holidays, the Tribunal has substantially
accepted the appellant's case and has directed that
the holidays should be reduced to IO every year. It
ha~ directed the appellant to fix these holidays in
consultation
with the respondents.
It has also
added that in view of the fact that a substantial
reduction was being made in the number of paid
holidays, the appellant should give the respondents
an additional increment in their grade with effect
from the 1st August, 1962.
This increment would
be in addition to the normal increment which may
become due or after the 1st August, 1962. This part
of the award reducing the number of holidays is
challenged by the respondents by their appeal
No. 626 of 1962. Both the appeals have been
brought before this Court by special leave.
The appellant is a Company
iHcorporatcd
under the the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
Jt has
its registered office at Bombay and it runs a factory
in which it manufactures life saving drugs, such
as antibiotics and anti-tubercular drugs, and vitamin
products. The appellant's factory was wor king a
multiplicity of shifts with· different times.
It,
however, found that this working did not fully utilise
the machinery installed in the factory. The utili·
sation of the raw product received by the appellant's
factory in Bombay from its factory at Chandigarh
was also not satisfactory and as a result of inadequate
production, the appellant was not able to meet
adequately the demand for its products from the
market. That is why the appellant came to the conclusion that there was need to introduce three shifts
in order to have extensive production of better
I
-
-
'
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
631
quality products. The appellant felt that if it was
able to prodi1te its products on a much larger scale,
it would be able to undertake export of the said
products, and in any event, larger production would
enable the appellant to meet its competitors in the
trade. Besides, the preparation of the well-known
anti-tubercular drug 'Para Amino Salicylic Acid'
(P.A.S.) which the appellant had developed in its
research laboratory after carrying out laboratory and
pilot plant experiments in 1960-61, needed the work·
ing of the relevant section on a three-shift basis
because its production was a continuou~ process and
a result of the investigation made by its expert, the
appellant came to the conclusion that the quality of
the product would be very much improved if the
section working in the production of the said drug
was to work continuously. That was an additional
reason why the appellant wanted to introduce 3 shifts
in its factory. It thought that if the chemical and
pharmaceutical departments were to work in three
shifts, the other subsidiary sections would also have
to "ork in three shifts in order to· cope with the
production. That, in brief, is the basis on which the
appellant wanted to introduce three shifts in its
factory; and so, it gave notice of change to the respondents, and after the conciliation efforts failed, it
moved the Maharashtra Government to refer these
disputes to the Industrial Tribunal for its adj udication.
The demand for three shifts was stoutly resisted
by the respondents. They urgedJ that for several years
past, in the appellant's factory the respondents have
received the benefit of 5-days week and that has now
become a term of their employment : the introduction of three shifts would inevitably convert the
5-days week into a 6-days week. and that would be
a retrograde step highly prejudicial to the interests
of the employees. They conceded that in case the
needs of the factory required, they would be willing
1962
Pji~tr (P) Lti.
Bnmbqy
..
T!te workme11
Gajendratadkllr, /,
1962
J'fi,er (P) I.Id.
Born/my
v.
The wor/;men
G'ojcl/llragadhar, J.
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
t() work on two Saturdays every month~provided they
were paid proper over-time wages for tnat work ; but
they disputed the appellant's claim thafthere was a
case for introducing such a drastic change as three
shifts. Besides, the respondents contended that the
inevitable consequence of the three shifts would be
addition to the work-load of the respGndents, and
according to them, the
proposal made by the
appellant in that behalf was a complete departure
from the pattern prevailing in the pharmaceutical
industry in the region. The respondents also disputed
the appellant's claim that the production of P.A.S.
1 was a continuous process. They were, however,
prepared to agree that all the manufacturing
departments should be run on a two-shifts basis,
avoiding the third shift altogether with suitable
adjustments in time.
The Tribunal considered the documentary and
oral evidence adduced by the parties before it in
support of their respective contentions and held th:.tt
the appellant had not made out a case for the introduction of three shifts.
It found that the effect of
the documentary evidence produced was to show
that the pharmaceutical factories in Greater Bombay
worked one, and in some casrs, two shifts, though in
a few cases, there were three shifts only in the
section manufacturing chemicals and not pharmaceuticals. It agreed that the departments like Watch
& Ward and maintenance were, in some companies,
working three shifts, but that was so even in the
appellant's factory.
The Tribunal also held that the
working arrangement which would result from the
introduction of three shifts would not only be
inconvenient to the bulk of the employees, but would
involve the abolition of the 5-days week system, and
it thought that, on principle, compelling the employees to work at night wou Id be prejudicial to their
interests and may not even help the production of
better quality product. In regard t() the appellant's
I •
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
633
claim that the production of P.A. S. involved a
continuous process, the Tribunal obseved _that the
evidence produced by the appellant did not show that
in the present state of manufacture by it of P. A. S.
it would be convenient to have three shifts so that
the product can be produced according to specifications without too many rejections. In .fact, the
Tribunal was not satisfied that the production of
this drug required continuous• working in 3 shifts.
On these findings, the Tribunal rejected the appe·
llant's case for the introduction of 3 shifts. In
rejecting this claim, the Tribunal observed that in
order to give some relief to the appellant and to
enable it to produce it! product in larger quantity,
it was reducmg the number of holidays ; and that
being so, there was hardly any case for increasing
the working hours.
It, however, appears that while the diRpute was
pending before the Tribunal, an interim arrangement
was allowed by it in regard to three shifts in the
P.A.S. department. Under this arrangement, the
appellant was authorised to introduce a third shift
in that department and rotate up to two employees
now ~ngaged in the other shifts in the night shift.
In its award, the Tribunal has ordered that this
interim arrangement should continue for a year after
the award becomes enforceable and then the question
may be considered. It has also ordered that the
two workers who will work in the night shift by
rotation should be paid @ 10% over their basic wages
and dearness allowance for the days on which they
are required to work in the third shift.
Then as to the holidays; the Tribunal took the
view that the number of holidays under the Negotiable Instruments Act which the appellant was
allowing to its employees was unreaso.1ably high. It
compared holidays allowed by other concerns and
came to the conclusion that 10 days' holidays in a
1962
Pfizer (P) Ltd.
.llomiay
v.
Tiu workmen
Gajendrazatlk.ar, J.
1969
Pji'" (P) Ltd.
JJombay
v.
The wor!.:men
Gajendragadkar, J.
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
year would be reasonable and just. In the result,
the appellant's claim for reduction of holidays
succeeded, while its claim in regard to the introduction of 3 shifts failed.
Before dealing with the points raised by the
parties in these appeals, it would be convenient to
indicate the. present working arrangements in the
factory of the appellant and the changes which would
be introduced in the said working arrangements if
three shifts are allowed. The factory of the appellant employs 821 workmen, 235 of whom are girl
employees; and since s. 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act
prohibits the employment of women in any factory,
except between the hours of 6 A.M. and 7 P.M.,
the problem posed by the proposal to introduce three
shifts involves the rotation in the 3 shifts only of male
workmen and that is a factor which has to be borne
in mind in dealing with the present dispute.
The statement filed by the appellant (Exb.C-1)
shows that there are four departments in the appellant's factory. The first department which works
6-day week on a three shift basis deals with P.A.S.
Watch and Ward, Maintenance and Hydrazine.
Each of the three shifts is spread over 8 hours; there
is a lunch break for half an hour and there are two
tea breaks of ten minutes each.
These breaks
are
common in
all
the
departments of the
factory. The actu'.ll working time in . the first department is 7 hrs. 10 mts. per day which means 43 hrs.
per week. The total number of employees in this
department is 125. The P.A. S. section of this
department, for instance, works in 3 shifts: 0700-1500,
1500-2300, 2300-0700, and in these 3 shifts, the
number of workmen employed is 10, 8 and 2 respectively.
The second department works 5 days in a week
on a one shift basu. The actual working time in
•
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
635
this department is 8.25 hrs. per day which means
42.5 hrs. per week. This department is concerned
with the production of ointment, mixing injection,
orals, INA, INAH, protinex and protin Hydrolisate.
The last two departments of this department work
5 days in a week. The total number of employees
in this department is 75 out of whom 18 are girls and
57 are boys.
The third department which works 5 days in a
week on a 2 shift basis, deals with packing filling
washing, tablet and capsules. The actual working,
time in this department is 8.25 hrs. per day which
totals up to 42.5 hrs. per week. The two shifts are
between 0800-1715 and 2145-0700. The total number
of employees in this department in the day shift is
339, out of whom 134 are boys and 205 are girls,
whereas the total number of employees in the night
shift is 117 boys.
The fourth department which works 5 days
in a week on one shift basis consists of reseach &
development, quality control, factory office, stores
and despatch godown. Its actual working time is
8.25 hrs. per day which means 42.05 hrs. per week.
The total number of employees in this department
is 165, 14 of whom are girls and 151 are boys.
Now, as a result of the 3 shifts which the
appellant proposes to introduce by its notice of
change, there would be substantial change in the
working arrangements in Groups II & III. There
would be no change in shift working hours or work
spread over in the first department. It may be
that the number of its employees may increase.
After 3 shifts are introduced, the second & third
departments would be combined for the purpose of
rotating the male workmen in the night shift. The
timings for the three shifts which are proposed for
these two departments combined are 7.20 A.M •. to
1962
Pfizer (P) Ltd.
Bombay
v.
The workmen
Gajendragatlkar, J.
1962
P fi<er ( P) Lid.
Bombay
v.
The workmen
Gsjendragadkar, J.
636 SUPREME GOUR T REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
3.20 P.M., 3.20 P. M. to 11.20 P.M. and 11.20 P.M.
to 7.20 A.M.
The break for lunch and the break
for two teas will continue. The result of the introduction of the 3 shifts would be, the working hours
will increase by 1 !, the net increase in the working
timings being 55 minutes per week. As soon as
the 3 shifts are introduced, the appellant expects
that those working in the existing first shift would
be placed in the new first shift and those working
at present on the night shift will be placed on the
second shift. The appellant proposes to increase
the number of its employees in the second shift
which it could not do at present because of diffi•
culties in rotation. In the night shift about 30 to
50 employees would be engaged and night · shift
work would be rotated among the male employees
with greater frequency. This, of course, will mean
the employment of some additional hands which
the appellant proposes to do. In regard to the fourth department, the present timings of 8.00 A.M.
to 5.15 P. M. would be changed to 9:00 J\.M. to
5.00 P.M. 6 days per week. This would result in
increase in working hours by l!, the net increase
in working timings being 55 mts. per week. That is
the nature of the working arrangements which would
evolve on the introduction of the 3 shift system in
the appellant's factory.
The week will cease
to be 5-day week
but will become 6-day week,
and the working hours will increase by l l, the net
increase in working timings being 55 mts. per week.
In dealing with the merits of the dispute in
the present appeals, it is essential to bear in mind
that in the face of the present national emergency,
the complexion of the problem has completely
changed. The whole economy of the country is now
being put on a war basis and inevitably, industrial
production must be geared up to meet the requirements of the nation. There can be no doubt that
at present, capital, labour and industrial adjudication
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
637
alike must be sensitive, and responsive, to the
paramount requirement of the community which is
faced with a grave danger, and so, all legitimate
efforts made by the employer to produce more and
more of the goods required for the community must
receive the cooperation of the employees-of course,
on reasonable terms. Both the learned AttorneyGeneral and Mr. Sule conceded that at the time
when this Court is dealing with the problem raised
by these appeals, it would be necessary to decide the
issues in the light of the peremptory and paramount
requiremeut of the Nation at this hour. There
can be little doubt that if the Tribunal had been
dealing with the present dispute at this time, it
would have adopted an entirely different approach.
The main argument on which :!I.fr. Sule has
relied and which has found favour with the Tribunal
is based on the pattern of industrial employment in
pharmaceutical industry in the region of Bombay.
We would, therefore, very -briefly, refer to this
pattern. It is well-known that under s. 51 of the
Factories Act, no adult worker shall be required or
allowed to work in a factory for more than 48 hours
in any week, and under s. 59, where a worker
works in a factory for more · than
9 hours in
a11y day
or for more than 48 hours in any
week, he shall be entitled to overtime payment as
prescribed by the said section.
Mr. Sule made a
grievance of the fact that by introducing 3 shifts,
the appellant would be substantially denying the
respondents the overtime wages to which they would
be entitled if they were called upon to work on
Saturdays under the present arrangements. This
grievance is, however, not well-founded because it
appears from the record that the appellant was
willing to pay for night work and was prepared to
consider extra payment for third shift, but the. re:
spondents were . not agreeable to comider that pro·
posal because they were, on principle, opposed to
IH2
l'fvt<f (P) Lti.
Bombay
v.
The wt1rkmett
1962
Pfizer (P) Ltd.
Bombay
v.
The wor~men
Ga_ •erulragtu!kar, /,
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
the introduction of three shifts. Indeed, the learned Attorney-General
has stated before us that in
case we allow the appellant to introduce three shifts,
the appellant is willin~ to go before the Tribunal
and
obtain its
decision
on the
question as
to the additional payment which should be made.
to the employees consequent upon the introduction
of 3 shifts. Therefore, the grievance that the respondents would be wholly denied the- overtime
wages to which they would be entitled under the
present arrangements loses much of its validity.
We have already noticed that the maximum work·
ing hours under the present system in the factory of
the appellant is 43 per week and it ranges between
42.05 to 43 hrs. and in no case, can the working
hours be increased beyond 48. In fact, as we have
already set out, according to the plan which the
appellant wants to introduce, there would be an
additional load of I! working hour, the net additional working load being of the order of 55 mts.
per week. In considering the question about the
pattern of working arrangements m the pharmaceuti·
cal industry in the region, these facts cannot be
ignored.
The statement (Ext. C-10) filed by the appellant to show that in certain pharmaceutical concerns
three shifts are working, refers to 15 industries. The
respondents made comments on the said statement
and challenged some of the assumptions made by
the appellant in that behalf. Mr. Sule has placed
before us a typed statement showing the actual
position in respect of these 15 factories. It appears
that in
most of these factories, security and
maintenance departments work three shifts. In Sandoz
India Ltd., Thana, the pharma plant works 3 shifts.
Similarly, in Raptakos Brott & Co. Pvt. Ltd., the
Dextrone Maltose section works 3 shifts. In Merck
Sharp & Dohme of India Ltd., C::hemic3;1 ~anufa~
turing process goes on under 3 shifts. S1mi\arly, m
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
639
Parke Davis India Ltd., Chemical Product Operators
work 3 shifts besides boiler serang, watchmen and
electricians.
Sarabhai Chemicals, Baroda, have
some departments working 3 shifts. Alembic, Baroda,
have some departments working 3 shifts. Hindusthan
Anti-biotic Poona have some departments working
3 shifts. Glaxo, Thana works 3 shifts. Lederlo,
Bulsar, works 3 shifts. It is true that the Tribunal
was not prepared to consider any concerns situated
outside Greater Bombay, but in dealing with the
larger issue as to whether it would be permissible to
introduce 3 shifts at least in respect of the chemical
sections of the Pharmaceutical industr:y, the Tribunal
should not have adopted this rigid attitude. Therefore, on the material placed before us, it is clear that
the chemical sections of the pharmaceutical factories
do work 3 shifts and this would have a direct bearing
on the appeUant's case in regard to the P.A.S: section
of its factory.
Besides, as we have already observed,
in dealing with the question about .3 shifts which
would inevitably lead to more production, the back·
ground of the imperative necessity of today cannot at
all be ignored.
Let us then consider whether the Tribunal was
right in holding that the ·production of P,.A.S. does
not involve a continuous process. On this· point, the
appellant led the evidence of Dr. Joshi who is M.Sc.
and Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry of the Bombay
University. He joined the appellant's service as a
Research Chemist in 1957 and has been placed in
charge of the appellant's Research Laboratory since
1959. In his affidavit he stated that the P.A.S. was
put on commercial production basis in January, 1962,
and he found by experience that out of the total
January. production of 2770 Kg. as much as 1795 Kg.,
i.e. 65%, was rejected by the Quality Control
Laboratory. The rejection was mainly due to higher
M.A.P. (Meta Amino Phenol) content.· This large
percentage of rejection raisrd a problem for the
1962
Pf'u;tr (P) Ltd.
Bomb9
••
The workmen
Gajendragadkar, J,
'1962
PJ"-" (P) Ltd • .
Bombay
v.
-
The workmen
Gaj~ndragadkar1 J.
/'''
640. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
appellant, and so, Dr. Joshi was deputed to investigate into the cause of bad quality of P.A.S. Having
conducted· several test runs in the laboratory, Dr.
Joshi came to. the conclusion that the M.A.P. content
·could be lowered within tolerable limits to pass
U.S.P. XVI specifications only if the operations after
the purification stage were made continuous and
carried out in- shortest possible time. Dr. Joshi stated
that he confirmed his conclusion by actual! y imp le·
menting his findings on the main plant itself. ·
According to Dr. Joshi, the operation leading
to the production of P .A.S. consists of eleven items.
The 6th item is purification. --After the purification
process is over, begins precipitation which takes one
hour; it is followed by centrifuging & washing,
digging of centrifuge which takes 6.30 hrs. Then
follows wet milling which accounts for 1.30 hrs.
That brings in vacuum dryer including charging and
discharging and this lengthy process takes !I hrs.; and
the last process is dry milling and packing which
means 2 hours. Dr. Joshi is of the opinion that the
- six processes . beginning with precipitation must be
· treated continuously in order to improve the quality
of P .A.S. and since they take 20 hours, three shifts
are inevitable.
·
Dr. Joshi was cross-examined by 1fr; Sule for
the respondents, and 11r. Sule very, strongly relied
on Dr. Joshi's statement that if acquaeous solutions
of P. A.S. are kept below 30 degrees centigrade, it
will stop deterioration. We do not see ·how this
statement can materially affect the main point made
by 11r. Joshi that the relevant processes beginning
with precipitation which takes 20 hours must be
continuously attended to. It is true that the respondents attempted to contradict Dr. Joshi's Statement
by examining 11:r; Pillai. who was working in the -
P.A. S. department
under
Mr. Moeller.
But
11r. Pillai is obviously not a technical man arid it
2 S.C R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
641
would be futile to suggest that the statements made by
him should be preferred to those made by Dr. Joshi.
Besides, it is significant that when he was crossexamincd, he virtually conceded that the six important proces•es would take at least 18! hours and that
itself would make it necessary to introduce three shifts.
In this connection, we ought to add that the statements made by Dr.Joshi in regard to the time occupied by each process are supported by the contemporaneous record kept by the laboratory workers.
This
record was produced by Dr. Joshi and it was shown
to Mr. Pillai who virtually refused to look at it.
Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal was in error
in holding that Dr. Joshi's evidence did not establish
the appellant's case that the process of producing
P.A.S. is a continuous process and in order to improve
its quality and to avoid rejection of a large percentage of the product it is necessary that three shifts
must be introduced in the section dealing with it.
In fact, the finding made by the Tribunal in this behalf
shows that the Tribunal did not really consider seriously the value of Dr. Joshi's evidence and was prepared
to accept Mr. Pillai's statements though they are
plainly partisan statements made by a person without
any technical knowledge. Therefore, there can be no
doubt whatever that the appellant is entitled to start
3 shifts in the P.A.S. section and produce P.A.S. in
larger quantities and of a better quality.
That takes up to the question as to whether the
other departments in the factory should also be
allowed to work 3 shifts. Now the pharmaceutical
srclion of the c;lepartment which produces ointments,
injections and other pharmaceutical products is at
present working on a 1 shift basis. But the evidence
given by Mr. Treharne, who is the Director of the
appellant Coy., makes out a strong case for working
this department in 3 shift~. He has stated that the
appellant has a factory at Chandigarh, and the total
production of that factory is available for processing
1962
Ffizer (P) ltd.
Bombay
v.
The workmtn
Gajendragadkar1 .I,
1962
J{Zer (P) Ltd.
Eomha;•
v.
17ie workmen
Gqjendragadkar, J.
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
into finished goods in the Bombay factory and when
it is so processed into finished goods, it becomes available for bulk sale to other pharmaceutical units in
India.
Mr. Treharne swore that the appellant was
not in a position to utilise all the production of the
Chandigarh factory because the production capacity
of the Bombay factory was unable to cope with the
bulk supplied from Chandigarh. At Chandigarh,
there are no sufficient production facilities, and,
be<ides, it is a different type of manufacturing unit.
Thus, the material available to the appellant's
factory in
Bombay from
its sister
factory in
Chandigarh cannot be promptly dealt with, because
the pharmaceutical section is working only in one
shift.
Mr. Treharne has also stated that a large number
of orders are outstanding because the production
capacity in Bombay is not adequate; and that means
that the appellant is continually losing
business
through its Jack of production facility and is unable
to meet the demand of needy patients. This factor
also adversely affects the appellant's position vis-a-vis
its competitors; and the witness added that the
appellant sometimes finds that it is unable to quote
for substantial Government and hospital tenclers.
Under these circumstances, particularly at the present
time when the need for production of beneficient
drugs is so great, it is difficult to resist the appellant's
claim that it should be allowed to introduce 3 shifts
in order to produce more drugs and thus meet the
requirements of the community. If the two depart·
ments are allowed to work 3 shifts, it would not be
reasonable to hold that the department dealing in
packing, filling, washing, tablet & capsules should not
keep pace. The activities of these departments are
integrated, and if the object in allowing the appellant
to start 3 shifts in its manufacturing departments,
both chemical and pharmaceutical, is to encourage
and enable it to produce more goods, then that o~ject
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
643
would be assisted if the subsidiary department is also
allowed to work 3 shifts. Therefore, we are inclined
to take the view that the claim of the appellant to
introduce 3 shifts cannot today, be rejected.
There are, however, some other considerations
which have to be taken into account before we reach
a final decision in the matter.
Mr.
Sule has
strenuous! y urged that the 5-day week and rest at
night which are guaranteed to the respondents under
the present service conditions prevailing in the appellant's factory, are benefits which the respondents
value very much, and he contends that it would be
a retrograde step to allow the appellant to make it
6-day week and to compel some of the respondents to
work at night. There can be no doubt that industrial employees are entitled to look forward to a 5-day
we.ek and work only by day. Two days' rest at the
end of every week would afford adequate opportunities to the employees to take part in cultural and
recreational activities and would tend to make their
work for the remaining 5-days more satisfactory and
efficient. Similarly, working at night may, on theoratical grounds, not be desirable. But these are
goals which may be reaeher.I after we attain an
adequately high level in our national economy and
industrial development. In the context of today,
it would be unreasonable to approach this problem
in a p•1rely doctrinaire spirit. If, today, an employer
desires to produce more goods which would meet the
requirements of the community and is prepared to
compensate the employees for the additional work
involved in the process, industrial adjudication would
be reluctant to discourage the employer and would
assist both capital and labour to devise ways to
cooperate with each other and produce more. Therefore, the academic arguments urged by Mr. Sule
cannot be treated as effective for the purpose of
deciding the present appeals.
1962
Pfizer (P) Ltd.,
Bombay
v.
Tiu workmen
Gajendragadkar, J.
1962
Pfiza ( P) Ltd.,
Bambav
v.
The workmen
Gajendragadkar, J.
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
On the question of employment of industrial
labour at night, rival views arc expressed.
Mr. Sule
has relied upon the observations made by Watkins
and Dodd (1) where the learned authors have criticised night work.
"Night work", they observed, "cannot be regarded as desirable, either from the point
of view of the employer or of the wage earner. It is
uneconomical unless overhead costs are annually
heavy ......... Then, it must be remembered that it is
distinctly unphysiological to turn the night into day
and deprive the body of the beneficial effects of sunshine.
The human organism revolts against this
procedure. · Added to artificial lighting are reversed
and unnatural times of eating, resting and sleeping.
Much of the inferiority of nightwork can doubtless
be traced to the failure of the workers to secure proper rest and sleep by day." .In fact, it is on this
passage that the Tribunal strongly relied in rejecting
the appellant's case.
On the other hand, the learned Attomev-General
has referred us to the observations made on this subject in an objective and fair manner in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (Vol. IV). Dealing
with the problem of continuous indmtry, it is obsered that the term 'continuous indmtry' is used to
characterise an industry in which the operations are
carried on day and night, Without interruption, over
extended periods and in which the necessarv labour is
applied in a sequence of shifts. Several factors are
then set out which justify the continuous working of
industrial factories.
Amongst them, reference is
made to the seasonal characteristics of the industry;
customary consumer's demand involving continuous,
uninterrupted production or service, as in public
utilities, transportation, hotels, baking, newspapers;
the desire
in
a competitive
industry to take
advantage of a peak of variable for . a product
as in the textile industry ; the desire for fnll
utilisation of special
investments in plant and
(I) h.Janagement of Labour Relations, 1st Edi. p. 523.
-
I
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
645
equipment before obsolescence of product or of
facilities; national emergency, as the urgent needs of
war; a force not yet actual but emerging, the belief
that the social burden oflabour can be alleviated by
continuous utilisation of equipment accompanied by
a distribution of the attendant labour among workers
organised in shifcs. The authors no doubt recognised
that the assumption created by industrial and social
customs is that the group working during the daylight hours is the normal one and that the others arc
abnormal. A better intelligence and still in labour
and supervision gravitate towards the day shift and
are accompanied by a better emotional
attitude
towards goals and methods.
Furthermore, studies
of night work indicate that usually a worker produces
less in a night than a day shift, although it is not yet
clear whether this is because of inherent physiological
and psychological factors, or because the worker who
labours at night yields to the temptation of activities
during the day which preclude the securing of normal
rest. It is then stated that the principal method of
. achieving equivalence
of shifts is by establishing
conditions of night work fully equivalent to those of
day work and by such a thoroughgoing establishment
of standards of skill, materials, facilities, processes,
methods, qualities and quantities as to permit
measurements, specifications and comparisons of
performance. Considering the question· as to the
direction in which the progress would be made in
this matter, the writers say that the direction of progress is not entirely clear. It is probable that night
work will decrease in those industries in which it is
not compelled by inherent technical conditions, for
recognition of a problem of economic balance among
industries as well as of the relatively lesser productivity of night work is causing the economic advantage
of continu{luS operating to be questioned.
On the
other hand. it is conceivable that industry may
discover how to organise night work more effectively
and eliminate factors now unfavourable to workers
/;62
l'ji"" (P) Ltd.
Bombay
v.
'J-~e workmc11
G11je11dragadkar, J.
1962
Pji;;er (P) Ltd.,
Bombay
v.
The workmen
Gajendragadkar, J.
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
and management, and society may decide that the
social disutility of such work is less than the social
advantage of shorter and shorter work periods made
possible by working machinery continuously with the
application of labour in short time shifts.
We do not propose to express any definite
opinion on this theoretical controversy.
As this
Court has repeatedly observed, in dealing with
industrial adjudication, it would be undesirable to
reach conclusions purely on doctrinaire or theoretical
considerations. Besides, as we have already emphasised, the adoption of such a theoretical or doctrinaire
approach has, in the context of today, lost some of
its validity.