OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION versus THE WORKMEN

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 482 · Decided: 28-09-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
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 inaop1icab1e to the case 
of the workmen at Baroda. 
The tribunal also observed that it W"'S not 
correct. that the factory wou1d suffer if the worki.,g hours of the clerical 
staff in the Baroda .'W'Orkshoo were re<luced fro-m 8 hours to 6t hoUN a 
day. · But the Tribunal accepted the aubm";sion of tlie workmen that 
Industrial l_aw. reco,g11ises the d"stirictio, betweeQ_ workers in factories 
. and worke.·s 1n office and he.,ce thoueh u.,der the Factories Act 
the 
Wprkmen may be asked to work 'for 48 hou•s or 8 hours a day, it does 
not necessarily follow that the clerical staff should also be made to work 
· 8 ·.hours a day when <thev hact h""en work . .,e for only 
61- hours a day 
from Dece'mber 1964 to June 1965. The Tribu"al also directed navme"t 
· ()f overtime compensation 
at 10% of pay to the office 
administrative 
staff for !he extra work taken .from them. 
A 
B 
c 
J) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
O.N.G.C. v. WORKMEN (Dua, /.) 
483 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be 
said that 6! working ho'urs a day was a term <>f service, for the simple 
reason that it was only durmg a period of the first six months, when the 
factory was being cohstructed thu.t the administrative office-staff was, as 
an 'interim arrangement, temporarily located at a place 2 k.m. away, that 
the staff in this office was not required to work for more than 6! hours 
per day. · There is no evidence that 6! hours per day was a condition of 
service; ne:ther is there any such term of service in their 
letters O'f 
appointment, nor is such a term of service otherwise discernible from 
other material on record. [487 HJ 
(ii) 
The Tribunal has wrongly 
interfered with the 
appellant's 
decision in fixing the hours of work which was fully within its competence 
and· was not open to any valid ohjestion. 
The Tribunal has not only 
made some contradictory observations about the practice prevailing 
in 
the other projects of the Appellant but has also misread the stateme.1t on 
record. 
The conclusiohs of the Tribunal are, therefore, tainted w:th 
serie

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.