http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: WORKMEN OF BOMBAY PORT TRUST

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE TRUST OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/1965

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. RAMASWAMI, V. SATYANARAYANARAJU, P.

CITATION:  1966 AIR 1201            1966 SCR  (2) 632

ACT:     Minimum  Wages  Act  (11 of 1948), ss.  13  and  14  and Minimum  Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, rr. 24  and  25--Scope of.

HEADNOTE:     The respondent had under its control several docks.  The trustees Of the respondent introduced a two shift system  of work  and  that resulted in the crew working in  some  docks getting  4  hours  of  overtime in some  docks  3  hours  of overtime  and  in others 2 hours of overtime only.   In  the last  category the 12 hours shift wag divided in-to 8  hours of  work,  2 hours of rest and 2 hours of overtime.   The  2 hours period of rest was variable depending on the tides  or the  exigencies of the work, though the crew  were  informed each day what the, period of rest would be on the  following day.   The  appellants,  who  belonged  to  this   category, complained  that  the breakup of the 12 hours shift  into  8 hours  of  duty,  2 hours of rest and 2  hours  of  overtime offended the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and that the system of variable  recess  did not satisfy the requirements  of  rest which is the basis for fixing statutorily the hours of  work in relation to wages.  The Industrial Tribunal held that the appellants  were  not able to establish  that  the  existing system of work needed any modification.     In appeal to this Court,     HELD:  There  was  no breach of  the  provision  of  the Minimum  Wages Act and the case of the appellants could  not be  compared  with  that of the crew working  at  the  other docks,  because,  there wag no parallel in the work  of  the three different sets of crew. [643 H]      If an employer takes actual work for 8 hours per day on 6 days in a week he complies with the relevant provisions of the  Act and the Rules, namely ss. 13 and 14 of the Act  and rr. 24 and 25 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules 1950, and need  not pay overtime.  He may go up to 9 hours on any  day without  paying any overtime provided he does not exceed  48 hours in the week.  He can specify the intervals of rest and spread  the 8 or 9 hours, as the case may be, together  with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

intervals  of  rest over 12 hours in  a  twelve-hour  shift. These  periods of rest must not be periods during which  the workman  is on duty and inaction is due to want of work  for him,  but  they must be predetermined  periods  of  inaction during which the workman is neither called upon nor expected to display physical activity or sustained attention.[641 B-D]      In  the present cage the total number of hours of  work in  a week was 48 (8 hours per day for 6  days).   Therefore overtime was payable beyond the period of 8 hours, for  that hour or part of an hour during which the workman was  either made to work or the interval of rest was not specified.  The respondent can say that it will not take more that two hours extra work on any day and specify the remaining two hours as the intervals for rest; and the Trustees would not be guilty of  infraction of the Act by keeping the recess variable  so long as they specify 633 in  advance the recess on any particular day.  The  Trustees could  not  be compelled to break up the hours  of  work  by interposing intervals for rest. [641 G-H; 643 B-C, D-E]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  325  of 1965.      Appeal by special leave from the Award dated  September 20,  1963  of the Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal, Bombay in Reference CG IT-25 of 1962.       S.  V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, M. Rajagopalan and K. R. Choudhuri, for the appellants.       C.  B.  Agarwala, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C.  Mathur  and Ravinder Narain, for the respondents.       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by       Hidayatullah  J.  This is an appeal by  special  leave against  an  award  dated September 20,  1963  made  by  the Presiding  Officer  of  the  Central  Government  Industrial Tribunal,  Bombay in a reference made by the  Government  of India  under s. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947. The appellants are the workmen of the Bombay Port Trust, who are and have been represented in this dispute by the  Bombay Port Trust Employees’ Union.  The respondents to this appeal are  the trustees of the Port of Bombay.  The reference  was made  on a joint application of the parties. and the  matter in dispute was stated to be :                     "Whether the existing system of work  of               the  shore crew of the Prince’s  and  Victoria               Docks  under  which each shift consists  of  8               hours’  normal duty, 2 hours’ variable  recess               and 12 hours’ overtime needs any modification? The  Tribunal,  by the award impugned here,  held  that  the Union was not able to establish that the existing system  of work needed any modification.       The  Port Trust had under its control  several  docks. Reference in this judgment will be made to the Prince’s  and Victoria Docks, the Alexandra Docks, Butcher Island and  the Flotilla  Crew.   These represent different  areas  of  work where  different groups of workmen were employed.  From  the facts  appearing on the record it appears that the  Trustees first introduced a two shift system of work in the Alexandra Docks  on June 30, 1953 and the same system was extended  to the  Prince’s  and  Victoria Docks  on  December  15,  1953. Previously,  the shore crew at all these places worked in  a single shift and were liable to be called out at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

634 any  hour  of the day or night.  When the two  shift  system began,  each shift of 12 hours was broken up into  8  hours’ duty,  2 hours’ variable recess and 2 hours’ overtime.   The hours  of  rest were kept variable as they depended  on  the tides.   In 1956 the workmen, who were then  represented  by the  Port Trust General Workers’ Union, made a demand for  a fixed  recess of two hours.  The Trustees  apprehended  that this was a device to get 4 hours’ overtime and rejected  the demand.  The General Workers Union was informed that if  the demand was pressed a three-shift system would be introduced. The  workmen  then  retraced their steps and  accepted  a  2 hours’  variable recess but requested that it should  be  as near  the  middle of the shift as  possible.   The  Trustees agreed  to  accept the hours of rest at fixed hours  in  the Alexandra Docks but at the Prince’s and Victoria Docks  they kept  it variable agreeing to fix it as near the  middle  of the  duty  hours as possible.  Under  this  arrangement  the shore  crew working at the Prince’s and Victoria Docks  were informed  each day what the period of rest would be  on  the following day.  In explanation of this difference it may  be pointed  out  that the Alexandra Docks work on a  system  of lock gates which enables the depth of water at the docks  to be  artificially  regulated but the  Prince’s  and  Victoria Docks,  being  tidal, work only at high tide.  It  was  thus possible  to fix rest hours at the Alexandra Docks for  half the crew different from the rest hours of the other half  so that  a part of the crew was always available on  hand.   As the  lock gates control the depth of water in the  Alexandra Docks,  fixed hours of rest could be maintained from day  to day  except in the monsoon months when the, storm gates  had some time to be closed.  During these months recess time  at the  Alexandra  Docks  was also variable  and  was  made  to coincide  with the closure of the storm gates.  The  workmen at  the Alexandra Docks seemed to have accepted  a  variable recess  of two hours but the Port Trust gave a notice  under s.  9A  of  the Industrial Disputes Act  on  June  25,  1960 announcing  the introduction of variable recess although  in the months other than the monsoon months recess was actually at  fixed hours.  The workmen opposed the change from  fixed to  variable recess.  Meanwhile studies were being made  and it was found that the work hours at the different Docks were not equal: they were heavier at the Alexandra Docks than  at the other docks.  The Trustees, therefore, resolved that the shore  crew at the Alexandra Docks should work for  8  hours and  that there should be a variable recess of one hour  and overtime of three hours should be paid.  Thus the 12  hours’ shift at the Alexandra Docks was 8 hours’ of duty, 3  hours’ overtime  and  one hour variable recess.  This  system  was, however, 635 not extended to the prince’s and Victoria Docks and Butcher Island.   At  these docks 8 hours’ duty, 2  hours’  rest  at variable  times and 2 hours’ overtime were prescribed.   The claim  of the shore crew at the Prince’s and Victoria  Docks and  Butcher  Island  for reducing the  hours  of  rest  and increasing overtime to three hours was not accepted  because the  amount of work in the, opinion of the Trustees did  not justify the change.  The Union contended that this  division of  12 hours’ shift into 8 hours’ work, 2 hours’ rest and  2 hours’ overtime violated the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act  and  that  the so-called period of  rest  was  illusory since, being variable, it was some times given right at  the commencement  of  the  shift  and some  times  at  the  end, depending  on the tides or the exigencies of the work.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

Union claimed that a 12 hours’ shift should be divided  into 8 hours’ work and 4 hours’ overtime as was the case with the Flotilla  Crew.   This claim was opposed  by  the  Trustees. According to them, there was no breach of the provisions  of the  Minimum Wages Act.  They contended that,  regard  being had  to the number of actual work hours, the case  of  shore crew  at  the Prince’s and Victoria Docks  and  the  Butcher Island  could not be compared with that of the crew  at  the Alexandra Docks or the Flotilla Crew.  The Tribunal accepted the  entire case put forward on behalf of the  Trustees  and the Union has appealed to this Court.      On  behalf of the Union the learned  Solicitor  General has  argued the case almost entirely from the  legal  stand- point and has attempted to establish that the break-up of  a 12  hours’  shift into 8 hours’ duty, 2 hours’  rest  and  2 hours’  overtime offends the Minimum Wages Act.  He, has  in addition  submitted that the system of variable recess  does not satisfy the requirements of rest which is the basis  for fixing statutorily the hours of work in relation to wages.      The Minimum Wages Act was enacted to enable  Government to fix minimum rates of wages in certain employments.  Since fixation  of minimum wages must take into account the  work- load  also, provision must not only be made for  prescribing the  minimum wage but to correlate it to a specified  amount of work.  Any extra work beyond the specified work-load must be paid for at a higher or what is known as "overtime" rate. Similarly,  intervals  of rest must punctuate  suitably  the hours of work and they must also be provided for in a scheme of  the work-day of a workman.  The Minimum Wages Act  makes provision for all these matters either by itself or  through Rules.  The Central Government has framed the Minimum  Wages (Central) Rules, 1950.  The Act and the 636 Rules between them provide not only for fixation of  minimum wages  but also for the work-load in relation to  which  the minimum wages are to be prescribed.  They provide on the one hand for minimum wages, lay down the procedure for fixing or revising  them  and prescribe the rules in  accordance  with which  the wages must be paid.  On the other hand,  the  Act and  the Rules fix the number of hours of work,  payment  of overtime  and  for  hours of rest in  the  work-day  of  the workman.   The  provisions of the Act and of the  Rules  are applicable to some employments only and they are shown in  a Schedule  appended  to  the Act.  It is  admitted  that  the present workmen come under the Schedule.  The hours of  work and the payment of overtime are, therefore, governed by  the provisions  of the Minimum Wages Act and the  Minimum  Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 and the controversy in this case  must be  appreciated  and resolved in accordance with  them.   We shall now turn to these provisions.     We  are concerned with two sections and two rules.   The sections  are Nos. 13 and 14 and the rules Nos. 24  and  25. The whole of the matter in dispute admittedly is governed by these,  four provisions.  We shall begin by setting out  the relevant parts of these provisions :-                   "13.   Fixing hours for a  normal  working               day, etc.                    (1)   In   regard   to   any    scheduled               employment  minimum rates of wages in  respect               of  which have been fixed under this Act,  the               appropriate Government may-                    (a)   fix  the  number of hours  of  work               which  shall constitute a normal working  day,               inclusive of one or more specified intervals;                     (b)  provide for a day of rest in  every

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

             period Of seven days which shall be allowed to               all employees or to any specified class of em-               ployees and for the payment of remuneration in               respect of such days of rest;                      (c) provide  for payment of work  on  a               day  of  rest  at a rate  not  less  than  the               overtime rate.                       (2)     The provisions of  sub-section               (1)  shall,  in  relation  to  the   following               classes  of  employees,  apply  only  to  such               extent  and subject to such conditions as  may               be prescribed:-                       (a)............................... 637                    (b)................................                    (c)   employees   whose   employment   is               essentially intermittent;                    (d)................................                    (e)................................                    (3)   For  the purposes of clause (c)  of               sub-section (2), employment of an employee  is               essentially  intermittent when it is  declared                             to  be so by the appropriate Governmen t on  the               ground  that  the daily hours of duty  of  the               employee,  or  if there be no daily  hours  of               duty  as such for the employee, the  hours  of               duty,  normally include, periods  of  inaction               during  which the employee may be on duty  but               is not called upon to display either  physical               activity or sustained attention." 14. Overtime.                    (1)   Where  an employee,  whose  minimum               rate  of wages is fixed under this Act by  the               hour,  by  the day or by such a  longer  wage-               period as may be prescribed, works on any  day               in excess of the number of hours  constituting               a  normal working day, the employer shall  pay               him  for every hour or for part of an hour  so               worked  in excess at the overtime  rate  fixed               under  this  Act  or  under  any  law  of  the               appropriate  Government for the time being  in               force, whichever is higher.                   (2)    Nothing in this Act shall prejudice               the operation of the provisions of section  59               of  the Factories Act, 1948 in any case  where               those provisions are applicable." Rule 24.  "Number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day-                   (1)    The  number  of hours  which  shall               constitute a normal working day shall be:-                      (a) in the case of an adult, 9 hours,                      (b) in the case of a child, 41 hours.                   (2)    The working day of an adult  worker               shall  be  so arranged that inclusive  of  the               intervals  for  rest,  if any,  it  shall  not               spread over more than twelve hours on any day. 638                   (3)    The number of hours of work in  the               case  of  an adolescent shall be the  same  as               that of an adult or a child according as he is               certified to work as an adult or a child by  a               competent medical practitioner approved by the               Central Government.                    (4)....................................

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

                  (4-A) No  Child  shall  be  employed   or               permitted to work for more than 4-1/2 hours on               any day.                     (5)  Nothing  in  this  rule  shall   be               deemed   to  affect  the  provisions  of   the               Factories Act, 1948". Rule 25.Extra wages for overtime--                    (1)   When   a   worker   works   in   an               employment for more than nine hours on any day               or  for  more than forty-eight  hours  in  any               week,  he shall, in respect of overtime  work,               be entitled to wages,                     (a)  in   the  case  of  employment   in               Agriculture,  at  one  and  a  half  time  the               ordinary rate of wages;                     (b)  in the case of any other  scheduled               employment,  at  double the ordinary  rate  of               wages.                    Explanation-The expression "ordinary rate               of  wages"  means  the basic  wage  plus  such               allowances  including the cash  equivalent  of               the    advantages   accruing    through    the               concessional  sale to the person  employed  of               foodgrains  and other articles as  the  person               employed is for the time being entitled to but               does not include a bonus.                      (2) A register showing overtime payment               shall be kept in form IV.                      (3)  Nothing  in  this  rule  shall  be               deemed   to  affect  the  provisions  of   the               Factories Act, 1948."      The  controversy in the present case is a  narrow  one. It is whether the fixing of a two hours’ rest and two hours’ overtime  involves a breach of the two sections of  the  Act and the two rules quoted here ? The workmen claim that under a  scheme  of  12hour shifts with 8  hours’  work,  overtime should be at least 3 hours, if not 4, and by fixing only two hours’  overtime the Trustee are B guilty of the  breach  of the Act and the Rules.  Unfortunately the provisions of  the Minimum Wages Act and the Minimum Wages 639 (Central) Rules, 1950, are not as clear as the corresponding provisions  of the Factories Act, 1948 and they have led  to long arguments before us.  We shall refer to the  provisions of  the Factories Act later because for the present we  must consider  the  provisions of the Act and the  Rules  without drawing any assistance from the Factories Act.      Section 13 of the Act does not itself fix the hours  of work  or  rest  or overtime.  That is  done  by  the  Rules. Section  13 only authorises Government to fix the number  of hours which shall constitute a normal working day, inclusive of  on,-. or more specified intervals.  The  normal  working day  thus includes (a) hours of actual duty, and (b) one  or more specified intervals.  There may be one interval of rest or  there may be more intervals but whatever  their  number, they  must  be  specified.   By  interval  under  s.  13  is obviously meant interval of rest and this is clear from Rule 24(2).  There is no definition of interval either in the Act or  the Rules but the provisions of S. 13 (2) (c) read  with S.  13  (3)  give us an indication of what is  meant  by  an interval of rest.  It means a break in the work during which a  workman,  though present on duty, is not called  upon  to display  either  physical activity or  sustained  attention. But it is not a period of more inaction because there is  no work for him.  If it is the latter, it is counted as  actual

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

work  period:  if the former, it is counted as a  period  of rest,  provided the period is specified beforehand, and  the workman is neither called upon to work nor expected to work.      Having  thus distinguished between period of  work  and interval of rest we may now turn to Rule 24 which prescribes the number of hours of work which is to constitute a  normal working  day.  Sub-rule (1) (a) provides that the number  of hours  constituting a normal working day for an adult  shall be  9. As the heading of the Rule shows these are the  hours of  work.  Sub-rule (2) then lays down that the working  day of an adult shall be so arranged that inclusive of intervals for rest it shall not spread over more than twelve hours  on any  day.   The distinction between intervals  of  rest  and hours of work is thus made clear.  From this it follows that on  any  single  day the number of hours of  work  must  not exceed  9  and  together with the hours of  rest  the  total period  of work and rest should not go beyond 12 hours.   It is  wrong to contend that the period of 9 hours must  always include intervals of rest.  It may or it may not.  There  is no provision in the Act and the Rules corresponding to s. 55 of the Factories 640 Act to which reference will be made hereafter.  In a 12-hour shift, the nine hours of work on any day can be spread  over 12  hours and the extra hours will necessarily be  hours  of rest.  The contention of the workmen is that S. 13 fixes the number  of hours in a normal working day and this number  is inclusive  of  one or more specified intervals.   They  read Rule  24, which prescribes a normal working day of 9  hours, as  including  within the 9 hours one or more  intervals  of rest.   We do not think this is a correct reading either  of s. 13 or of Rule 24.  There is clear antinomy between  hours of  work and intervals of rest in sub-rules (1) and  (2)  of Rule  24 and the phrase ’inclusive of one or more  specified intervals’ governs the normal working day and not the number of hours of work.      Under  sub-rule  (2) of Rule 24 the working day  of  an adult can be so arranged that inclusive of intervals of rest it  does not exceed 12 hours on any day.  A working day  may extend  to 12 hours but the number of hours of  work  cannot exceed 9. A working day of 12 hours is thus made up of hours of  work and hours of rest and the number of hours  of  work (which  cannot exceed 9) is part of the normal  working  day which  may also include one or more specified  intervals  of rest.  This determines what is a normal working day and what is  meant  by  an  interval of rest.  We  now  come  to  the question of overtime.      If  work on any day is taken which goes beyond 9  hours the  provisions  of  s. 14 apply.   That  action  speaks  of overtime.   Overtime  is payable for work in excess  of  the number of hours constituting a normal working day.  From  s. 13  read  with  Rule 24 we know that  the  number  of  hours constituting  a normal working day is 9. We shall  now  read into  S. 14 this number leaving out those  provisions  which have  no bearing upon the matter.  The section so read  lays down :-                     "Where  an employee........... works  on               any  day  in excess of 9 hours,  the  employer               shall pay him for every hour or for part of an               hour  so  worked  in excess  at  the  overtime               rate........... "        Under  Rule 25 (1) (b) this overtime rate  is  double the ordinary rate of wages.  Therefore, an employer can take actual work on any day upto 9 hours in a 12-hour shift,  but he must pay a double rate for any hour or part of an hour of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

actual work in excess of 9 hours.  He need not, however, pay for   any  interval  of  rest  provided  it   is   specified beforehand.  These provisions are subject to 641 one more check which we may now mention.  The check is found in the latter part of Rule 25(1) which says that the maximum number  of hours of work in a week shall not exceed  48  and for any work in excess of 48 hours a week overtime shall  be payable.  As there is a prescribed day of rest in a week  we get  a working week of six days with a maximum of 48  hours’ work.   Average duration of actual work payable at  ordinary rate  of  wages per day thus comes to 8 hours.  Thus  if  an employer takes actual work for 8 hours per day on 6 days  in a week he complies with all the provisions and need not  pay overtime.  He may go up to 9 hours on any day without paying any  overtime  provided he does not exceed 48 hours  in  the week.  He can specify the intervals of rest and spread the 8 hours  or  9  hours,  as the  case  may  be,  together  with intervals  of  rest  over 12 hours in  a  twelvehour  shift. These  periods of rest must not be periods during which  the workman  is on duty and inaction is due to want of work  for him,  but  they must be pre-determined periods  of  inaction during which the workman is neither called upon nor expected to display physical activity or sustained attention.      We  have seen that an employer having a  12-hour  shift can fix 48 hours of work per week of six days at 8 hours per day.  He is not compelled to give overtime for the remaining four hours unless he takes work during those hours, provided he  has specified those hours as intervals of rest.   If  he takes work during the extra 4 hours or fails to specify  the hours  of rest he must pay overtime.  He can spread 8  hours with intervals of rest to 9, 10, 11 or 12 hours as he likes. For the hours of rest he is not required to pay overtime but he  must specify those hours.  Overtime under s. 14 is  only payable  when the workman works in excess of the  number  of hours  constituting a normal working day.  That number is  9 hours  for any day and work up to 9 hours on any day can  be taken  without paying overtime if the total number of  hours in the week does not exceed 48.  As in the present case  the total  number of hours of work in a week is 48 (8 hours  per day for 6 days) overtime is payable for that hour or part of an  hour beyond the 8 hours in which the workman  is  either made  to  work or the interval is not specified.   The  Port Trust  can  say that it will not take more  than  two  hours extra work on any day and specify the remaining two hours as the  intervals for rest.  It is, not compelled to  fix  only one  interval or to make the interval of one hour only.   It can  fix two or three or even four without in any way  going against the provisions of s. 13 or Rule 24. 642     At  this  stage  it  is instructive  to  look  into  the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 dealing with the daily hours  of  work, intervals for rest and spread over  of  the working  time.   Sections  54, 55 and 56  are  the  relevant provisions.   Omitting  the portions not necessary  for  the purpose  of  comparison,  these sections  read  "54.   Daily hours.     "54.Daily hours      Subject  to  the  provisions of section  51,  no  adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory for more than nine hours in any day      Provided..................      "55.  Intervals for rest.       (1) The  periods of work of adult workers in a factory each day shall be so fixed that no period shall exceed  five

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

hours and that no worker shall work for more than five hours before  he has had an interval for rest of at least half  an hour.        (2)........................        "56.  Spread over.         The periods of work of an adult worker in a  factory shall  be  so arranged that inclusive of his  intervals  for rest  under section 55 they shall not spread over more  than ten and a half hours in any day:         Provided  that the Chief Inspector may, for  reasons to  be  specified in writing, increase the  spread  over  to twelve hours." Almost  the  same provisions are to be found in  some  other Acts   of   the  State   Legislatures   controlling   shops, establishments etc.     It  will  be  noticed  that  the  arrangement  of  these sections is almost the same as the cognate provisions of the Minimum  Wages Act.  Here too, the hours of work  cannot  be more  than 9 in a day and taken with the intervals for  rest these  9  hours may be spread over 10-1/2 hours.   The  only difference  is  that a worker must not be made to  work  for more than 5 hours at a stretch before he has had an interval for  rest  of  half  an hour at  the  least.   There  is  no provision in the Minimum Wages Act which breaks up the hours of  work  by interposing a compulsory period of rest  as  is done by the latter part of s. 55 of the Factories Act.   The reason,  perhaps, is that in some employments time for  work depends on some 643 extraneous factors and hours of rest cannot always be  fixed to,  break up those hours.  It is proverbial that  time  and tide do not wait for any man.  Workers at a tidal dock  must work  when the tide is in and take their rest when the  tide is out.  It is for this reason that a variable recess is  in force at the Prince’s and Victoria Docks and due. notice  of the  interval  is given by specifying a day in  advance  the hours of rest.  We do not think that the Trustees are guilty of infraction of the Minimum Wages Act by keeping the recess variable  so long as they specify in advance the  recess  on any particular day.  It will also be noticed that the scheme of the Minimum Wages Act compels the inclusion of an hour of rest  in  a normal working day.  This is achieved  by  pres- cribing  that the hours of work in a six-day week shall  not exceed 48, although on any particular day the hours of  work in  a day may go up to 9. In this indirect way one  hour  of rest  is included in a normal working day because the  total number of work hours in a six-day week cannot go beyond  48. What has not been done by the Act or the Rules is to specify that the interval for rest shall break up the hours of work. The  Trustees cannot be compelled to break up the  hours  of work  by  interposing intervals for rest, if  owing  to  the nature  of  the  work  there is  difficulty  in  giving  the intervals  for  rest in that manner on any  particular  day. According  to their resolution the recess is fixed  as  near the middle of the work as possible, depending on the tides.      The  workmen  compared  the case of  the  Prince’s  and Victoria Docks with the cases of the Alexandra Docks and the Flotilla Crew.  They point out that in the former there is 3 hours’  overtime  and  in the latter there  is  4  hours  of overtime  in  the 12-hour shifts, but at  the  Prince’s  and Victoria Docks there is 2 hours’ overtime only.  They  claim equal  treatment.   This is not possible.  The crew  at  the Prince’s  and  Victoria Docks work in a  different  way  and their case cannot be compared with that of the Flotilla Crew or  the crew at the Alexandra Docks.  The Flotilla Crew  has

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

to  remain  on duty for full 12 hours and they work  as  and when  they are required.  Although their hours of  duty  are only 8 they are entitled, if present for work, for  overtime up  to  four hours.  The crew at the Alexandra Docks  get  a specified  interval of one hour for rest and this  makes  up their  9 hours which is 8 hours’ work and one hour  interval for  rest.   They are, therefore, entitled to  three  hours’ overtime if required to work beyond the 9 hours on any  day. There is no parallel in the work of the three different crew and  we are satisfied that no conclusion can be  based  upon the practice existing at the Alexandra Docks or in 644 respect of the Flotilla Crew.  We hold, therefore, that  the decision  of the Central Government Industrial  Tribunal  is right  in  a circumstances of this case.   The  appeal  must therefore fail.  It will be   but  in the  circumstances  of the case we make no order about costs.                              Appeal dismissed. 645