http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE WORKMEN

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/09/1972

BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) RAY, A.N.

CITATION:  1973 AIR  968            1973 SCR  (2) 482  1973 SCC  (3) 535  CITATOR INFO :  D          1975 SC1856  (8)

ACT: Industrial   Law---Industrial  Tribunal--Working  Hours   of Administrative     staff--Management’s     competence     to fix--Reduction  of working hours by  tribunal--Circumstances justifying interference.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant  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 construction and  there was insufficient accommodation at the site of the  workshop, the office/administrative staff used to work in a shed at  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 to June, 1965, when on  completion of the construction at the site of the  work- shop  the  administrative  staff shifted  there.   With  the shifting  of  the  office to the site  of  the  factory  the working hours of the administrative staff were fixed from  8 a.m.  to 5 p.m. with an interval of one hour.  The-  workmen claimed  that  working  hours of  the  administrative  staff should  have  continued  to  be 6  1/2  hours  per  day  and complained that fixation of 8 hours per day with effect from June, 1965 was violative of s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.  It was further complained that the fixation of 8 hours per  day  was  not  justified 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 and Natural Gas Commission. The  tribunal came to the conclusion that there was  nothing to show that it was a condition of service of the  employees in  the administrative office to work only for 61 hours  per day and that there was no uniform practice of working either for  6 1/2 hour-, only or for 8 hours, for office staff,  at all  places.   In the opinion of  the  Tribunal,  therefore,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

there  was  no presumption of there being any  condition  of service either way. on this reasoning Section 9A of the  Act was held inapplicable to the case of the workmen at  Boroda. The tribunal also observed that it was not correct that  the factory  would suffer if the working hours of  the  clerical staff in the Baroda workshop were reduced from 8 hours to  6 1/2  hours a day.  But the Tribunal accepted the  submission of   the   workmen  that  Industrial  law   recognises   the distinction  between  workers in factories  and  workers  in office and hence though under the Factories Act the  workmen may be asked to work for 48 hours 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 they had been working for only  6  1/2 hours a day from December 1964  to  June  1965. ’The Tribunal also directed payment of overtime compensation at  10%  of pay to the office administrative staff  for  the extra work taken from thorn. 483 Allowing the appeal, HELD:     (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case  it cannot be said that 6 1/2 working hours a day was a term  of service,  for  the simple reason that it was only  during  a period  of the first six months, when the factory was  being constructed that 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 1/2 hours per day.  There is  no  evidence that 6 1/2 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 discernible from other material on record. [487 H] (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 objection.    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 statement  on record.  The conclusions of the Tribunal  are, therefore,   tainted  with  serious   infirmity   justifying reappraisal of the evidence by this Court for coming to  its own independent conclusion on such appraisal.               (a)  The management must have 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 First Schedule of the Act, compliance               with   the   section  would   undoubtedly   be               necessary for its sustenance.  In the  present               case s. 9A is not attracted.  It was only when               the    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 was  within  the               competence of the management. [491 H]               (b)   The view of the tribunal that  reduction               in the hours of work of the office staff  from               8  to 6 1/2 hours would not  adversely  affect               the  working is not supported by  evidence  on               the record. [493 F]               (c)   The  Tribunal  was  also  not  right  in               saying  that  in other  projects  the  working               hours  of  administrative  office  are  6  1/2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

             hours.   According to the material  on  record               working hours- in these offices vary and there               is no uniform practice.  But the fact that  in               some  of the other offices the  working  hours               are  6  1/2  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 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               importance.[493 F] (iii)     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. [494A] 484 Workmen  of B.O.A.C. v.  B.O.A.C., [1962] 1 I.L.J.  257  and Nawabganj  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.   industrial Tribunal,  Hyderabad,  [1961] H L.L.J.  526  and  Associated Cements  Staff  Union  v. Associated  Cement  Company  Ltd., [1964] I L.L.J. 12, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 391 of 1972. Appeal  by special leave from the Award dated  November  18, 1971  of  the  National Industrial Tribunal,  New  Delhi  in Reference No. NIT 4 of 1970. Niren  De Attorney,-General for India and B. Dutta, for  the appellant. M.   C. Bhandare, P. H. Parekh and S. Bhandare, for  respon- dent 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 by special leave from the award of the  National Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi dated  November 18,  1971.   While granting special leave  on  February  24, 1972,  this  Court directed that costs  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               "(1)  Whether the demand of the  workmen  that               the  Oil and Natural Gas  Commission,  Baroda,               should  stop 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 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’?

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

             (3)   If  so, to what reliefs are the  workmen               entitled ?"               485               As  a result of the retirement of  Shri  Kamal               Sahai, the Central Government on December  10,               1970 referred the said dispute to the Tribunal               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  stop 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 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 ?               (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 principal 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 construction and there was  insufficient accommodation   at   the   site   of   the   workshop,   the office/administrative  staff  used to work in a  shed  at  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 to June, 1965, when on  completion  of  the  construction at  the  site  of  the workshop the administrative staff shifted there.  With  this shifting of the office to the site of 486 the  factory the working hours of the  administrative  staff were  fixed  from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with an interval  of  one hour.  These facts are not in dispute.  The workmen  claimed that  working hours of the administrative staff should  have continued  to  be 6 1/2 hours per day  and  complained  that fixation of 8 hours per day with effect from June, 1965  was violative   of  s.  9A  of  the  Industrial   Disputes   Act (hereinafter  called  the Act).  It was  further  complained that the fixation of 8 hours per day was not justified  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

the  point of view of convenience and was also  at  variance with  the  practice uniformly prevailing in  other  adminis- trative  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 the  employees in  the administrative office to work only for 61 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 6 1/2 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  accommodation 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  6  1/2 hours  a  day for a period of six month does not  mean  that 61/2  hours  a day was a condition of  their  service.   The Tribunal  was  also not satisfied  that  the  administrative staff  in  all  the  projects  of  the  Oil  &  Natural  Gas Commission  worked  only for 6 1/2 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  1/2  hours  including half-an-hour’s  rest interval.  In the headquarters  central auto-workshop,  DehraDun,  three  persons  of  office  staff worked  for  8  1/2 hours, including  half  an  hour’s  rest interval.   In the Cauvery project some clerks work  for  81 hours  including  half an hour’s rest  interval.   In  other projects   of  the  Oil  &  Natural  Gas   Commission,   the administrative  staff is working 6 1/2 hours 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 61 hours only or for 8 hours, excluding  rest intervals, for office staff, at all  places. In  the  opinion of the Tribunal, therefore,  there  was  no presumption  of there being any condition of service  either way.   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 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  6 1/2 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  does not  necessarily  follow  that  the clerical  staff  should also be made to work 8 hours  a  day when  they had been working for only 6 1/2 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 suffer  by  reducing the  working hours of the clerical staff from 8 hours to  61 hours.   The  Tribunal  also agreed  with  this  submission, basing  its  conclusion on the evidence of  Shri  S.  Hassan (M.W.  1).   In  the case of  time-keepers  and  the  store- keepers,  however,  the  Tribunal  felt  that  reducing  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

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 1/2 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 technical staff generally works for 8 hours  a day  while  the  clerical  staff in  many  projects  of  the workshop itself work only for 61 hours a day. Dealing  with  issue no. 2 the Tribunal observed  that  com- pensation  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 Tribunal.  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 61  hours  was questioned.  It was contended on their behalf that it was  a term  of their service that they should work only for 6  1/2 hours  per  day, and, therefore, change from 61 hours  to  8 hours  per day without proper notice was violative of s.  9A of the Act. In  our opinion, on the facts and circumstances of  this  it cannot be said that 6 1/2 working hours a day was a term of service, 488 for  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 office was, as an  interim arrangement, temporarily located in tests at a place about 2 k.m. away, that the staff in this office was not required to work  for  more  than 6 1/2 hours per  day.   There  is  no- evidence  that  6  1/2  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 discernible from other material on the record.  As soon  as  the construction at the site of  the  factory  was complete 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 fixed at 8 hours per  day so as to facilitate efficient functioning of the workshop to the expected capacity. The Tribunal 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 1/2 hours only.  Nor is there  anything               to  that effect in the appointment  letter  of               the  employee.   Nor  is  it  a  condition  of               service that he would work 8 hours.  There  is               nothing   to   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 6 1/2  hours  a               day,  it  had  become  a  condition  of  their               service.   This contention is  without  force.               The  mere  fact that while  the  workshop  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

             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  1/2               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 this  reasoning  with which  we are in complete agreement.  Incidentally,  looking at the terms of reference also it is clear that no  specific dispute was raised by the workmen on the basis of any  claim that the term of their employment to work only for 61  hours per  day had been varied without the requisite notice  under S. 9A.  This challenge against the award by the  respondents is accordingly repelled. 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 6 1/2 hours a day and whether the Tribunal   has   rightly  directed   payment   of   overtime compensation  at  10 % of pay to the  office  administrative staff (exclusive of 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  workmen               is  that the change in the hours of  work  was               not  justified  from  the  point  of  view  of               convenience    and    that    services     are               transferable  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 61 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 required to work for 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 6 1/2 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.O.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 61 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  6 1/2 hours a day.  The Tribunal also observed that it was not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

correct  that the factory would suffer if the working  hours of the clerical (1) [1962] 1 I. L J. 257 (2) [1964] 1 I. L. J. 750. 490 staff in the Baroda workshop were reduced from 8 hours to 61 hours a day.  For this conclusion reference has been made in the award to the statement of M.W. 1 Shri S. Hassan,  Deputy Manager (Establishment). The learned Attorney General has submitted that the ratio of the decision in the B.O.A.C. case (supra) to which the  Tri- bunal  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 pres-               cribe  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 normal.  Sometimes, if  the  work               was heavier and the vagaries of the arrival or               departure  of the aircraft imposed  additional               burden,   the   normal  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-eight               hours  as the normal working hours in a  week,               the  tribunal has committed an error  must  be               judged  not  so  much by a  reference  to  the               existing normal working 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 sustain the argument of  the               appellants that forty eight hours in a week is               either  unduly reasonable (unreasonable ?)  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  bad peculiar  characteristics.   It  had  three  categories   of employees,  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 48 hours per  week as  normal duty hours for all employees.  The  Tribunal  had held that the Corporation was entitled to so fix the working hours.  On appeal by the workmen, after noting the  peculiar features of the service expected of the 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 work  only  for  36 hours a week as it  used  to  do.   This decision,  therefore,  in  our opinion, does  not  help  the respondents.   Nawabgunj  Sugar Mills (supra)  dealing  with rationing  allowance is equally-if not more-unhelpful.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

learned Attorney General drew our attention to the  decision in May & Bekar Ltd. v. Their Workmen(1) for the  proposition that it is not open to the Industrial Tribunal to reduce the working  hours  either  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.  Indus- trial  Tribunal, Hyderabad(2) in support of the  proposition that the management has the power to vary the working  hours within  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 Company Ltd.(3) where this Court pointed out that it was not the  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  not shown  to  impair the health of the workmen.   It  was  also argued that there is no general uniform pattern of 61  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 Gene- ral’s submission.  The management must, in our opinion, have (1) [1961] II L.L.J. 94.    (2) [1961] II L.L.J. 526. (3) [1964] I L.L.J. 12. 14-L498Sup.  Cl/73 492 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 First 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  kilometers  away awaiting completion of its permanent abode, the factory  was in  the  process  of  being constructed  and  there  was  no question  of fixing the working 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 61 hours per day.  It was only when  the  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

the  working  hours  of the clerical  staff  in  the  Baroda workshop  from 8 hours to 6 1/2 hours a day.   According  to the  Tribunal itself Shri Hasan had stated that he  did  not think that working of the factory would be adversely affect- ed if the timings of the general staff and the office  staff are  changed with the number of working 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 Shri 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. 1).  He has stated :               "The  Baroda workshop differs from  the  other               workshops of the Commission as it is a Central               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 : (1) Office               Administration, (2) Technical  Administration,               (3)  Stores, (4) Accounts, (5) Transport,  (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.               493               Transfers from the office of the main workshop               to other 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."               The  passage on which the Tribunal has  relied               on for its view is :               "I  do  not  think that  the  working  of  the               factory  would  be adversely affected  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  way 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 made 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 statement.  The view of the Tribunal  that reduction in the hours of work of the office staff from 8 to 6  1/2 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  6 1/2 hours.  Working hours in these offices, according to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

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 61 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  opi- nion,  fully  justified,  and  the  Tribunal  was  wrong  in reducing  its working hours to 6 1/2 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 6 1/2 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 494 cogent ground for reducing the working hours from 8 to 6 1/2 in  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  sub- mitted  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 practice 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. 1).  It has indeed 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  objection.   The  conclusions of  the  Tribunal  are, therefore,  tainted  with serious infirmity  justifying  re- appraisal  of the evidence by this Court for coming  to  its own independent conclusion on such reappraisal. The  result,  therefore, is that this  appeal  succeeds  and allowing  the  same  we set aside  the  award  reducing  the working  hours from 8 to 6 1/2 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. 495