OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION v. WORKMEN

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 construc**tion 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 inaop1icab** **[1]** **e** **to** **the case** **of** **the workmen** **at** **Baroda.** **The** **tribunal also observed that it** **W"'S** **not** **correct. that the factory** **wou** **[1]** **d** **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 fix ing 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 pro### jects 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 _Nawab-_ _gan; 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, _Work-_ _men_ _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. A B 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. ### 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 en titled?" 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 en titled ? ( 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~ pro##### jects 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 em plovee~. 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. _lnd11s-_ _trial_ _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 administra tive 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 (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 cO;N.G.C. V. WORKMEN _(Dua,_ _J.)_ 493 A B # c D E F G H 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." 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 in terfered 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