PFIZER (P) LTD. BOMBAY versus THE WORKMEN

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 30-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
627 
PFIZER (P) LTD. BOMBAY 
ti. 
THE WORKMEN 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS 
GUPTA 
and 
j. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Industrial DiBpute-Thr<e shift aystem-lntroduction of-
Number of paid holidays in a year-RedtUJtion of-Effect of 
National Emergency on indUBtrial adjudication -lndiutri•l 
Di•putea Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), ••· 10 (1),(d) 12 (5). 
The appellant company runs a factory in which it manu-
factures life saving drugs such as antibiotics and anti-tubercular 
drugs and vitamin prodttets. The factory was working a multi-
plicity of shifts with different timings. It was found that the 
machinery installed in the factory was not fully utilised. The 
production was inadequate and the appellant ·was not able to 
meet the demand for its products. The appellant decided to 
introduce three shifts in order to have extensive production of 
better quality products. The preparation of the drug known 
as P.A.S. required the working of the relevant sections on three 
shift basis because its production was a continuous process. 
The quality of the product would improve if the section work-
ing in the production of the said drug worked continuously. If 
the chemical and pharmaceutical departments were to work in 
three shifts, other subsidiary sections had also to work in three 
shifts in order to cope with increased production. 
The appellant gave a notice to the respondents that it 
wanted to introduce three shifts in the factory. Conciliation 
efforts failed and the matter was referred to the Industrial 
Tribunal for adjudication. 
The Tribunal gave its award against the appellant so far 
as the introduction of the three shifts was concerned. 
It held 
that the introduction of three shifts would be inconvenient to 
the hulk of the employees and would also involve the abolition 
of five days' week. The employees would be compelled to work 
at night and better quality of products will not be produced. 
The Tribunal also held that the production of the drug known 
as P.A.S. <lid not require continuous working in three shifts. 
But the Tribunal rcrluccrl the number of holidays from 27 to IO. 
1962 
Nooembu 99 
1962 
l'fu:er (P) Ltd. 
Bom6qy 
v. 
Th, workmen 
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
Cross-appeals were filed in this Court against the decision 
of the Tribunal. The company appealed against the order of 
the Tribunal rejecting its demand for the introduction of three 
shifts and workmen appealed against the order reducing the 
number of holidays. 
Held, that the appellant be allowed to introduce three 
shifts in the factory. The process of manufacture of the drug 
P.A.S. was continuous and as it took 20 hours, three shifts were 
inevitable. In order to improve quality and avoid rejection of 
a large percentage of the product, it was necessary that three 
shifts must be introduced in the section dealing with it. By 
introducing three shifts, both quality and quantity will improve. 
Three shifts were also allowed for pharmaceutical section of 
the Department which produced ointment, injections and other 
pharmaceutical products. As the Department dealing in packing, 
filling, washing, tablet and capsules has to keep pace with the 
other two Departments, three shifts were allowed for that 
Department also. The objection of the respondents that three 
shifts would involve work at night and hence was not desirable, 
was rejected. Another objection that the introduction of three 
shifts would involve the beginning of the work at 7-20 a.m. 
which was an unduly early hour for work, was also rejected. 
That hour had been selected as a starting hour having regard to 
the convenience of transport available in the locality. The 
Court however, rejected the contention of the appellant that 
because the Standing Orders contemplated the adoption of more 
than one shift, it was entirely and absolutely in the discretion of 
the management to make the change without due scrutiny by 
Industrial adjudication. The Court also rejected the contention 
of the workmen that because the introduction of three shifts 
would make a departure from the pattern prevailing in the 
pharmaceutical industry, the change could not be permitted. 
The question must be considered in the light of relevant facts 
adduced before the Court. In doing so, the importance and 
necessity of more production must be borne in mind. 
While allowing the introduction of three shifts, the Court 
was influenced 

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