# OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION v. THE WORKMEN

- **Citation:** [1973] 2 S.C.R. 482
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-09-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 391 of 1972
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, A. N. Ray, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/oil-natural-gas-commission-v-the-workmen-5867
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

/111/usrrial Law-Industrial Tribun'a/-Working Hours of Administra·
tive staff-Ma11a,qeme11t's competence to fix-Reduction
of _working
hours hy tribu11a/-Circumstances justifying interference.
The appellant ha.s 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
t•ansferred for
exigencies of service from one .workshop to another as also
from .:me
region to another.
At Baroda, whe:n the workshop was under construction and there was insuffic:ent accommodat.on at the site of the work·
3hop,. the office/administrative staff used to work in _a shed at a distance
of about 2 k.m. 'from the workshop.
At lhat time tlie working hours of
the administrative staff \vcre from 10 ·a.m. to 5 p.m. with an interval of
half an hour.
These Y.'ork;ng hours lasted from December, 1964 t'J Ju"'e,
1965, when on completion of the construction at the site of the work;
shop the administrative staff shifted there.
With the -shifti -g of the
vffice to the site of the factory the working hours of the administrative
staff were fixed from 8 a.m. to s· p.m. with an interval of one
hour.
The workmen claimed that working hours of the administrative
staff
should have continued to be 6!; hours
per day and
compla:ned that
. , fixation pf 8 hours per d'Y wifo effect from Ju"e, 1965 was violative of
s. 9A of lhe Industrial Disnutes Act. It was further comolained that the
fixation of fi hours per day was not just'fied from the poin.t of view of
convenience and was also at varh.nce v.:ith the practice u"iformly pre·
vai'ing in other administrative offices of the workshops of the Oil and
Natural Gas Commission.
'1
The trjbunal came to the conclusion that there was nothing to show
that it was a condition of serv:ce of the emoloyees in the admi...,istrative
office to work only 'for 6!: hours per day and· that there was no u"if"'111
practice of working either for 6t hours only or for 8 hours, for office
staff, at all places.
Jn the opinion of the Tribunal, therefore, there was
no presumption of there bei11g any condit:o., of service e'ther way. 011
this rcasonirig Sectio11 9A of the Act was held inaop1icab1e to the case
of the workmen at Baroda.
The tribunal also observed that it W"'S not
correct. that the factory wou1d suffer if the worki.,g hours of the clerical
staff in the Baroda .'W'Orkshoo were re<luced fro-m 8 hours to 6t hoUN a
day. · But the Tribunal accepted the aubm";sion of tlie workmen that
Industrial l_aw. reco,g11ises the d"stirictio, betweeQ_ workers in factories
. and worke.·s 1n office and he.,ce thoueh u.,der the Factories Act
the
Wprkmen may be asked to work 'for 48 hou•s or 8 hours a day, it does
not necessarily follow that the clerical staff should also be made to work
· 8 ·.hours a day when <thev hact h""en work . .,e for only
61- hours a day
from Dece'mber 1964 to June 1965. The Tribu"al also directed navme"t
· ()f overtime compensation
at 10% of pay to the office
administrative
staff for !he extra work taken .from them.
A
B
c
J)
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
O.N.G.C. v. WORKMEN (Dua, /.)
483
Allowing the appeal,
HELD: (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be
said that 6! working ho'urs a day was a term <>f service, for the simple
reason that it was only durmg a period of the first six months, when the
factory was being cohstructed thu.t the administrative office-staff was, as
an 'interim arrangement, temporarily located at a place 2 k.m. away, that
the staff in this office was not required to work for more than 6! hours
per day. · There is no evidence that 6! hours per day was a condition of
service; ne:ther is there any such term of service in their
letters O'f
appointment, nor is such a term of service otherwise discernible from
other material on record. [487 HJ
(ii)
The Tribunal has wrongly
interfered with the
appellant's
decision in fixing the hours of work which was fully within its competence
and· was not open to

## Text

•
482
OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION
v.
THE WORKMEN
September 28, 1972
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
/111/usrrial Law-Industrial Tribun'a/-Working Hours of Administra·
tive staff-Ma11a,qeme11t's competence to fix-Reduction
of _working
hours hy tribu11a/-Circumstances justifying interference.
The appellant ha.s 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
t•ansferred for
exigencies of service from one .workshop to another as also
from .:me
region to another.
At Baroda, whe:n the workshop was under construction and there was insuffic:ent accommodat.on at the site of the work·
3hop,. the office/administrative staff used to work in _a shed at a distance
of about 2 k.m. 'from the workshop.
At lhat time tlie working hours of
the administrative staff \vcre from 10 ·a.m. to 5 p.m. with an interval of
half an hour.
These Y.'ork;ng hours lasted from December, 1964 t'J Ju"'e,
1965, when on completion of the construction at the site of the work;
shop the administrative staff shifted there.
With the -shifti -g of the
vffice to the site of the factory the working hours of the administrative
staff were fixed from 8 a.m. to s· p.m. with an interval of one
hour.
The workmen claimed that working hours of the administrative
staff
should have continued to be 6!; hours
per day and
compla:ned that
. , fixation pf 8 hours per d'Y wifo effect from Ju"e, 1965 was violative of
s. 9A of lhe Industrial Disnutes Act. It was further comolained that the
fixation of fi hours per day was not just'fied from the poin.t of view of
convenience and was also at varh.nce v.:ith the practice u"iformly pre·
vai'ing in other administrative offices of the workshops of the Oil and
Natural Gas Commission.
'1
The trjbunal came to the conclusion that there was nothing to show
that it was a condition of serv:ce of the emoloyees in the admi...,istrative
office to work only 'for 6!: hours per day and· that there was no u"if"'111
practice of working either for 6t hours only or for 8 hours, for office
staff, at all places.
Jn the opinion of the Tribunal, therefore, there was
no presumption of there bei11g any condit:o., of service e'ther way. 011
this rcasonirig Sectio11 9A of the Act was held inaop1icab1e to the case
of the workmen at Baroda.
The tribunal also observed that it W"'S not
correct. that the factory wou1d suffer if the worki.,g hours of the clerical
staff in the Baroda .'W'Orkshoo were re<luced fro-m 8 hours to 6t hoUN a
day. · But the Tribunal accepted the aubm";sion of tlie workmen that
Industrial l_aw. reco,g11ises the d"stirictio, betweeQ_ workers in factories
. and worke.·s 1n office and he.,ce thoueh u.,der the Factories Act
the
Wprkmen may be asked to work 'for 48 hou•s or 8 hours a day, it does
not necessarily follow that the clerical staff should also be made to work
· 8 ·.hours a day when <thev hact h""en work . .,e for only
61- hours a day
from Dece'mber 1964 to June 1965. The Tribu"al also directed navme"t
· ()f overtime compensation
at 10% of pay to the office
administrative
staff for !he extra work taken .from them.
A
B
c
J)
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
O.N.G.C. v. WORKMEN (Dua, /.)
483
Allowing the appeal,
HELD: (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be
said that 6! working ho'urs a day was a term <>f service, for the simple
reason that it was only durmg a period of the first six months, when the
factory was being cohstructed thu.t the administrative office-staff was, as
an 'interim arrangement, temporarily located at a place 2 k.m. away, that
the staff in this office was not required to work for more than 6! hours
per day. · There is no evidence that 6! hours per day was a condition of
service; ne:ther is there any such term of service in their
letters O'f
appointment, nor is such a term of service otherwise discernible from
other material on record. [487 HJ
(ii)
The Tribunal has wrongly
interfered with the
appellant's
decision in fixing the hours of work which was fully within its competence
and· was not open to any valid ohjestion.
The Tribunal has not only
made some contradictory observations about the practice prevailing
in
the other projects of the Appellant but has also misread the stateme.1t on
record.
The conclusiohs of the Tribunal are, therefore, tainted w:th
serie>us infirmity justifying reappraisal of the evidence by this Court for
coming to its own independent conclusion on such appra;sal.
(a)
(b)
(c)
The management must have full power and discretion in fixing the working hours of the administrat:ve staff within the
limits prescribed by the statute. When the change in
the
working hours is ce>vered by s. 9A read with the First Sche·
dole of the Act, compliance with the section would undoubtedly be necessary for ;ts sustenaoce. In the present case s. 9A
is not attracted. It was only when the fact<>ry was c<>mpleted
and the administrative staff attached to it shifted to its own
bu.lding at the factory site, that the management, apparently
on an overall assessment of its requirements, fixed 8 working
hours per day. This was withill
the competence of the
management. [491 HJ
The view of the tribunal that reduction in the hou•s of work
of the office staff 'from 8 to 6! hours would not- adversely
affect the working is not suppbrted by evidence on the record.
,
[493 Fl
The Tribunal was alse> not right in saying that iri ,other projects the working hours . of adm:nist•ative o!fice are 6t hours.
According to the material on record workmg hours m these
offices vary and there is no uniform practice. But the fact
that in some -of the other oftices the worki"l! bou•s are 6t
hours per day, cannot be the determini.ng facto~. The office
at Baroda being the controlling office its
reqmrements and
exigencies of work are such that fixing of 8 '1ours of work
a day is fully justified. The mere fact that the staff at Baroda
is liable to transfer to other projects' is of little importa·c•.
.
(493 Fl
(iii1 Once it is found that 8 hours a day bas ,,.,en P':"""rly fixed for
work in the ·administrative office there can be no ques!lon of payment
of any compensation, for working for 8 hours a day in the past. [494A]
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 2 s.c.R.
Workmen of B.O.A,C. v. B.0.A.C., [1962) 1 I.L.J. 257 and Nawabgan; Sugar Mills v. Its Workmen, [1964] 1 L.L.J. 750, held inapplicable.
May & Baker (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1961) II L.L.J. 94, Workmen of Hindustan Shipyard (P) Ltd. v. /ndustrial Tribunal, Hyderabad,
[D61] II L.L.J. 526 and Associated Cements Staff Union v. Asspciated
Cement Company Ltd., [1964) 1 L.L.J. 12, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 391 of
1972.
Appe-al by·special leave from the Award dated November 18,
1971 of the National Industrial .Tribunai New Delhi in Reference
No. NIT 4 of 1970.
A
B
Niten De Attorney-Genera/ for India and B. Dutta, for the
c
appellant.
M. C. Bhandare, P. H. Parekh and S. Bhandare, for respondent No. 1.
P. S. Kheri and S. K. Nandi, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DuA, J. This is an appeal ~ special leave from the award
of the National Industrial T1ibunal, New Delhi dated November
18, 1971. While granting special leave on February 24, 1972,
this Court directed that cos:s of the respondents should in any
event be paid by the appellant.
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 it for adjudication the following industrial dispute :
SCHEDULE
"(l) Whether the demand of the workmen that the
Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Baroda, should stop
the extra hvurs 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 Coinmis~ion 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,
196.'.>, 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?"
D
E
G
H
A
ll
(
E
G
H
O.N.G.C, V. WORKMEN (Dua, J,)
485
As a result of the retirement of Shri Kamal Sahai, the Central
Gover~ment on I?ecember 10, 1970 referred the said dispute to
the 1:nbunal 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 & Natural Gas Commission, Baroda should
story
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 ove'rtime 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 orincipal controversy in this Court is thus confined
to issues nos. 1 to 3.
The appellant, the Oil & 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 construe.
tion and there was insufficient accommodation at the site of the
worshop, the office/ administrative staff used tc. work in a shed
a( 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 December, 1964 ti) June, 1965. when on completion
of the construction at the site of the works)lop the administrative
staff shifted there. With this shifting of the office to the site of
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973]2s.c.R.
~.he factory the working hours of the administrative staff were
fixed from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with an interval c;f one hour. These
facts are not in dispute. The workmen claimed that working
hours 0f the admimstrative staff should have continued to be
6t hours per day and complained that fixation of 8 hours per
day with effect from June, 1965 was violative of s. 9A of the
Inoustrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act). It was
further complained that the fixation of 8 hours per day was not
justifierl from .. the point of view of convenience and was also at
variance with the practice uniformly prevailing in other administrative offices of the workshops of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission.
The Tribunal, came to the conclusion that there was nothing
to show that it was a condition of service of t.he employees in the
administrative office to WGrk. only for 6t hours per day.
There
was no term to that effect in the appointment letters of employees.
The contention that since the workmen had as a matter of fact
been working from December 1964 till June 1965 for only 6t
hours a day, it had become a condition of their service was also
repelled.
The Tribunal observed that the mere fact that while
the workshop was under construction and there was not enough
a~commodation for the office/administrative staff in the workshop building at the site, they were accommodated in· another
building which worked there along with other clerks for only
6t hours a day for a period of siY month does not mean that
6t hours a day was a condition of their service.
The Tribunal
was also not satisfied that the administrative stair in all th~ projects of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission worked only for 6t
hours per day. It was pointed out that in the Jammu project
three persons of the administrative staff worked for 9 hours including one hour's rest interval and two persons for 8 t hours including half-an-hour's rest· interval. In the he1rquar ers central
auto-workshop, Debra Dun, three persons of office staff worked
for St hours, including half an hour's rest interval. In the Cauvery project some clerks work for St hours including half an
hour's rest interval. In other projects of the Oil & Natural Gas
Commission, the administrative staff is working 6t houn or less
than 8 hours excluding rest interval. After referring to these instances the Tribunal observed that there was no uniform practice
of working either for 6t hours only or for 8 hours, exclu<ling
rest intervals, for office staff, at all places. In the opinion of the
Tnbunal, therefore, there was no presumption of there being any
condition of service either wav. On this reasoning s. 9A of the
Act was held inapplicable to the case of the workmen at Baroda.
The Tribunal next dealt with the contention that the change
in the hours of work was not justified from the point of view of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
-O;N.G.C. v. WORKMEN (Dua, J.)
487
convenience and that the workmen being transferable all over the
country and the pay scales being similar, hours of work in
the
Baroda workshop should not have been changed from 6t hours.
including half an hour rest interval to 9 hours, including rest interval for one hour. It was successfully contended by the workmen that though under the Factories Act the workmen may be
asked to work for 48 hours a week or 8 hours a day, it docs not
necessarily follow that the clerical staff should also be made to
work 8 hours a day when they had been working for only 61
hours a day from December 1964 to June 1965. Emphasis was
laid on behalf of .the workmen on the submission that industrial
law recognises the distinction between workers in 'factories and
workers in offices. This approach found favour with the Tribunal.
The workmen further contended that the management had
wrongly claimed that work in the factory would sufkr by reducing .the working hours of the clerical staff from 8 hours to 6 l
hours. The Tribunal also agreed with this submission, basing its
conclusion on the evidence of Shri S. Hassan (M.W. I). In the
case of time-keepers and the store-keepers, however, the Tribunal
felt that reducing the working hours in their case
would prejudicially affect the working of the factory.
The contention on
behalf of the management that change in the working hours of
the clerical staff from 8 hours to 6! hours is likely to give rise
to dissatisfaction among other workers was
repelled
on
the
ground that in case of two
projects,
namely,
Cambay
and
Navagaon, the working hours of the clerical staff were less than
those of the technical
staff.
According to the Tribunal
the
technkal staff generally works for 8 hours a day while the clerical staff in many projects of the workshop itself work only for
6t hours a day.
Dealing with issue no. 2 the Tribunal observed that compensation at the rate of 10% of pay to the office administrative
staff (excluding time-keepers and store-keepers) was
justified
for the period for .which they were made to work for 8 hours a
day.
On appeal the learned Attorney General has assailed the line
of reasoning and the conclusion of the Trihtinal.
On behalf of
the respondent also the conclusion of the Tribunal that there
was no term or condition of service fixing the
daily
working
hours, of the administrative staff at 6t hours was questioned. It
was contended on their behalf that it was a tenn of their service
that they should work only for 6t hours per day. and,
therefore, change from 6t hours to 8 hours per day without proper
notice was violative of s. 9A of the Act.
1 In. our opinion. on the fact' and circumstances of this it cannot be said that 6~· working hours a day was a term of service,
488
SUPREME COURT &!!PORTS
{l!/73] 2 S.C.R.
tor the simple reason that it was only during a period of the
first six months, when the factory was being constructed at the
-site of the workshop that, due to shortage of accommodation,
the administrative otfice was, as an interim arrangement, temporarily located in tests at a place about 2 k.m. away,
that the
stalf in this office was not required to work for more than 6t
hours per day.
There is no evidence that 6!- hours per day was
a condition of service; neither is there any such term of service
in their letters of appointment, nor is
such a term of service
otherwise discernabte frpm other material ori the record.
As
soon as the constructien at the site of the factory was coμiplcte
and the workshop was ready to start its normal
and
regular
working, the administrative office was shifted to its permanent
abode at the site of the factory.
It was then that the proper
regular working of the administrative office and its staff started
at the site of the factory with working hours being appropriately
Jixed at 8 hours per day so as to facilitate efficient functioning
of the workshop to the expected capacity.
The Trib,unal dealt with the part of the case in these words :
"There is nothing to show that it was a condition
of service that an employee would work 6! hours only.
Nor is there anything to that effect in the
appointment letter of the employee.
Nor is it a c0ndition of
ser¥ice that he would work 8 hours. There is nothing
10 that effect either in the appointment letter.
The contention on behalf of the
workmen is that
since they had been working from December 1964 till
June 1965 only for 6l hours a day, it had become a
condition of their service.
This contention is
without force.
The mere fact that while the workshop
was under completion and there
was
not
enough
accommodation for the office/ administrative staff
in
the workshop building, they were
accommodated in
another building and worked there
along with other
clerks for only 6 l hours in a day for a period of 6
months, will not make it a condition for their service."
Nothing cogent has been urged
against
~his reasomn&
with
which we are in complete agreement.
Inc1dentally, lookmg at
the tenns of reference also it is clear that n,o specific dispute was
raised by the workmen on the basis of any claim that the term
of their employment to work only for 6t hours per day ha.d
been varied without the requisite notice
under s.
9A.
Thi~
challenge against the award by the respondents is
accordingly
repelled.
A
c
D
E
G
II
A
8
c
D
F
G
H
O.N.G.C. v. WORKMEN (Dua, 1.)
489
The controversy indeed mainly rests on the question whether
fixation of 8 hours of work per day is otherwise objectionable
and the working hours have been rightly reduced by the Tribunal to 61 hours a day and whether the Tribunal has rightly
directed payment of overtime compensation at 10% of pay to
the office administrative staff (exclusive cf time-keepers
and
store-keepers) for the extra work taken from them in the past.
The rival contentions raised before the Tribunal on this aspect
may be stated in the words of the Tribunal itself :
"The next contention on behalf of the workme11 is
that the change in the hours of work was not justified
from the point of view of convenience and that services
are transferrable all over the country and pay scales
are one and the same and that consequently the hours
of work in the Baroda workshop should
not
have
been changed from 7 hours including half an hour's
rest interval, to 9 hours. including one hour's rest interval.
There is no doubt that a change
has
been
made in June 1965 from 6t hours of work to 8 hours
of work after the staff was shifted to the workshop
premises.
The contention on behalf of the management is that the Factories Act applies to the workshops and that consequently the
management is not
doing anything wrong in asking
the
administrative
staff in the workshop to work for 8 hours.
It is also
contended by the management that if this is not done.
the work in the workshop will suffer."
The Tribunal noticed that under the Factories Act a workman
may be rerruired to work (or 48 hours a week but in its view
"it does not necessarily follow that the clerical staff should also
be made to work 8 hours a day although they had been working only 6t hours a day from December 1964 to June
1965"
for even in the case of working shifts, many shifts work for less
than 8 hours a day.
The Tribunal, after referring 'to the decision in the Workmen of B.0.A.C. v. B.O.A.C.( 1 ) and to the
decision in Nawabganj Sugar Mills v. Its Workmen( 2 ) observed
that it was "a question for consideration whether in the other
projects of the ONGC itself and other offices in Baroda. the
Administrative Office staff was made to work 8 hours a day or
only 6t hours a day." According to the Tribunal the technical
staff generally works for 8 hours a day whereas the clerical staff
in many of the projects of the workshop itself works only 6J
hours a. day. The Tribunal also observed that it was not correct
that the factory would suffer if the working hours of the clerical
(1) [1962] I I. L J. 257.
(2) [1964] I L .L. J. 750.
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973) 2 S.C.R.
staff in the Baroda workshop were reduced from 8 houl'!'
to
6t hours a day. For this conclusion reference has been macte in
the award to the statement of M.W. l Shri S. Hassan, Deputy
Manager (Establishment).
The learned Attorney General has submitted that the ratio
of the decision in the B.0.A.C. case (supra) to which the Tribunal has referred in the award does not support the view taken
by it.
Our attention has been invited to the following passage
in that judgment -
"It is in the light of all these features of the service
expected of the appellants that we have to
consider
the question as to whether the tribunal was
right in
fixing the weekly hours of work at forty-eight.
It is
clear that until 1964 there was no occasion to
prescribe the weekly hours as such because the extent and
volume of the work did not justify any such fixation.
Sometimes, employees in the three
respective
categories were not required to do as much weekly work
as was regarded as nonnal. Sometimes, if the work
was heavier and the vagaries of the arrival or departure of the aircraft imposed additional burden. the nor~
ma! working hours were exceeded. Until
1964 no
question of payment of overtime
wages
arose.
In
1954, the respondent started paying overtime wages in
the manner already
indicated.
Therefore, the question as to whether in fixing forty-ei11;ht
hours as the
nonnal working hours in a week,
the
tribunal
ha~
committed an error must be judged not so much by a
reference to the existing nonnal workin1i weekly hours
but by a reference to the principles which
generally
apply to the fixation of weekly working hours. In our
opinion, judged in that way, it would be difficult to
sus•ain the argument of the appellants that forty eight
hours in a week is
either unduly reasonable ( 11nreasonable ?) or excessive.
That is
why we do not
think that the general argument urged by the
appellants that the
existing working hours should be
standardized can be accepted."
The reported case dealt with an establishment which had peculiar characteristics.
It had three C!ltegories of emoloyees,
one
of which used to work for 36 hours and the other for 39 hours
and the third for 42 hours. The respondent corporation in that
case fixed 4,8 hours per week as nonnal dutv hours for all emplovee~. The Tribunal had held that the Corooration was entitled to so fix the workimz hours. On aoneal by the workmen,
after noting the peculiar features of the service expected of the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
' '
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
O.N.G.C. v. WORKMEN (D11a, /.)
491
workmen· this Court made the above
observation.
In
regard
to the office· staff which had always been working for 36 hours
a week it was conceded in that case that it should W•)rk •mly for
36 hours a week as it used to do.
This decision, therefore, in
our opinion, does not help the respondents.
Nmvabg1111j S11ga_r
Mills (supra) dealing with rationing
allowance is
equally-if
not more-unhelpful. The learned Attorney General drew our
attention to the decision
in May & Bekar Ltd. v.
Their
Workmen(') for the proposition that it is not open to the Industrial Tribunal to reduce the working hours ~ither directly
or
indirectly where the employer was following the working hours
prescribed by a statutory provision.
In this reported case the
relevant provision of Delhi Shops & Establishments Act. 1954
fell fOr consideration. Reference was also made by the learned
Attorney General to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Workmen of Hindustan Shipyard (P) Ltd. v. lnd11strial Trib1111al, Hyderabad{°) in support of the proposition that
the management has the power to vary the working hours with·
in the limits prescribed by law.
In that case the provisions of
the Factories Act and of the Madras Shops & Establishments
Act, 1958 fell for consideration by
the
court.
The learned
Attorney General also drew our attention to Associated Cements
Staff Union v. Associated Cement Cgmpany Ltd.(1) where this
Court pointed out that it was not tlie function of industrial adjudication to fix the working hours with an eye to enable · the
workmen to earn over-time wages and it pointed out that
the
various factors relevant for fixing hours of work.
The learned
Attorney General emphasised the fact that the Tribunal failed
to consider the question of adverse effect of the reduced working hours of the office staff on production which is a relevant
factor to consider. He further contended that 8 hours a day is
no'. shown to impair the health of the workmen.
It was also
argued that there is no general uniform pattern of 6t hours of
work per day in the offices of the other projects of the Oil &
Natural Gas Commission and that each project has its
own
pattern to suit its requirements. Considerable stress has also
been laid on the submission that administrative offices attached
to all factories of the appellant have to work for 48
hours
a
week. It must be particularly so in the case of the administrative office attached to the central workshop at Baroda which,
according to the appellant's submission, controls all the workshops in the western region.
In our opinion, there is merit in the learned Attorney General's submission.
The management must, in our opinion, have
(I) [1961] U L.L.1. 94.
(2) [1961] II L.L.J. 526.
(3) [1964] I L.L.J. 12.
H-U98Sup. CI/73
492
-'UPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 2 S.C.R.
full power and discretion in fixing the working hours of the
administrative staff within the limits prescribed by the statute.
When the change in the working hours is covered by s. 9A read
with the F.irst Schedule of the Act, compliance with the said section would undoubtedly be necessary for its sustenance.
In the
present case, as already observed, s. 9A is not attracted. When
the administrative office at Baroda was temporarily located about
a couple of kilometres away awaiting completion of its permanent abode, the factory was in the process of being constructed
and there was no question of fixing the wor!dng hours of the
administrative office on a permanent basis.
Perhaps there was
not even enough work for the office staff to keep them occupied
for more than 6! hours per day.
It was only when tlie factory
was completed and the administrative staff attached to it shifted
to its own building at the factory site, that the management apparently on an overall assessment of its
requirements fixed 8
working hours per day.
This, in our opinion, was within the
competence of the management. The Tribunal was also, in our
view, not right when it observed that the work in the factory
would not suffer by reducing the working hours of the clerical
staff in the Baroda workshop from 8 hours to 6t hours a day.
According to the Tribunal itself Shri Hasan had stated that h~ did
not think that working of the factory would be adversely affected if the timings of the general staff and the office staff are
changed with the number of work_ing hours remaining the same
and that change of half an hour this way or that way is done at
times when required. In other words the Tribunal itself did not
understand Shr.i Hasan to refer to the regular reduction of working hours by an hour and a half on a permanent basis. We may
now turn to the -actual statement of Shri Hasan (M.W. I). He
has stated :
"The Baroda workshop differs from the other worl;J
shops of the Commission as it is a Cen\ral Workshop
and takes up major repairs and
controls
all
other
shops in the Western Region.
There are 8 to 9 departments in the office of the workshop.
They are :
(I) Office Administration, (2) Technical
Administration, ( 3) Stor~s. ( 4) Accounts,
( 5)
Tran~port,
(6} Security, (7) Works Manager (i), (8) Works
Manager (ii), ( 9) Planning and Designing. All these
Departments have different controlling heads.
If the hours of the staff working in the office of
the workshop are reduced, it will adversely affect the
working because the whole work is
connected. It
would certainly affect other workshops of the Commission because there will be agitations and
dissatisfaction in other workshops.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
cO;N.G.C. V. WORKMEN (Dua, J.)
Transfers from the office of the main workshop to
cother workshops offices are quite frequent.
The staff
may be transferred to any part of India. Similarly,
the staff from other parts of India may be transferred
to the office of the Baroda workshops."
493
Tht: passa_ge on which the Tribunal has relied on for its view
is :
"I do not think that the working of the factory
would be adversely affect~ if the timingS of the 'general shift' and the office staff are changed with the number of working hours remaining the same. Change of
half an hour this Wa:f or that way is done at times
when required.
If a change is made of one hour in the timings
with the number of working hours remaining the same,
it is likely to affect adversely the working."
This passage does not in any way attract from the categorical
statement inade earlier that if the hours of the staff, working in
the office of the Workshop, are reduced, it will adversely affect
the working because the whole work is connected. The Tribunal does not seem to have correctly read Shri Hasan's · state·
ment. The view of the Tribunal that reduction in the hours of
work of the office staff from 8 to 6t hours would not adversely
affect the working is, in our opinion, not only not supported by
the evidence on the record but appears to be contrary to the
statement of Shri Hasan.
The Tribunal was also not right in saying that in other projects the working hours of administrative office are 6t hours.
Working hours in these offices, according to the material on the
record, vary and there is no uniform practice. But the fact that
in some of the other offices, the working hours are 6t hours per
day, cannot be the determining factor.
The _office at Baroda
being the controlling office its requirements and exigencies
of
work are such that fixing of 8 hours work a day is, in our opinion, fully justified, and the Tribunal was wrong in reducing its
working hours to 6t hours a day. The mere fact that the staff at
Baroda is liable to transfer to other projects. is, in our view of
little importance. Assuming that by transfer to some other projects the employee concerned would have to work for 6t hours
a day, that would not render the fixation of 8 hours a day for
the administrative office at Baroda objectionable or open
to
interference by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has itself
already
observed that in the other projects the working hours in the administrative offices vary.
If that is so then this could not be a
49~
SliPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] 2 S,C,R.
cogent ground for reducing the working hours from 8 to 6t in
A
the Central Office at Baroda. Once it is found that 8 hours a
day has been properly fixed for work in the administrative office
there can be no question of payment of any compensation, for
working for. 8 hours a day in the past.
The respondents' learned counsel, Shri Bhandare, has
submitted that this Court should not interfere with the conclusions
of the Tribunal under Art. 136 of the Constitution as those conclusions are based on appreciation ·of evidence.
However erroneous they may- be, according to Shri Bhandare, it is not the
practic,e of this Court to interfere with such conclusions. In
our view, the Tribunal has not only made some contradictory
observations about the practice prevailing in the other projects
of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission but has also misread the
. statement of Shri Hasan (M.W. l). It has indeed wrongly interfered with the appellant's decision in fixing the hours of work
which was fully within its cc;mpetence, and was not open to any
valid objection. The conclusions of the Tribunal are, theref.;re,
tainted with serious infirmity justifying re-appraisal of the evidence by this Court for coming to its own independent conclusion on such re-appraisal.
The result, therefore, is that thi_s appeal succeeds and allowing the same we set aside the award reducing the working hours
from 8 to 6t hours per day in the Baroda Central Offices and
also set aside the order granting compensation at 10% of the
salary. The appellant will of course pay the costs of the respondent in this Court.
K.B.N.
Appeal allowed.
B
c
])
E