TRANSPORT & DOCK WORKERS UNION AND ORS. versus MUMBAI PORT TRUST AND. ANR.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 873 · Decided: 15-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 873 
TRANSPORT & DOCK WORKERS UNION AND ORS. 
V. 
MUMBAI PORT TRUST AND. ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9753 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 15, 2010 · 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Servi93 Law - Fixation of working/duty hours with · 
reference to date of appointment - Challenge to - Plea of , 
discrimination -
Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution 
C 
alleged - Typist-cum-Computer Clerks in Bombay Port trust 
- Those appointed prior to 1-11-1996, working only for 6Y2 . 
hours a day while those appointed after 1-11-1996 made to 
work for 7Y2 hours a day - Such classification with reference · 
to date of appointment challenged -
Held: Since the 
D 
classification with reference to the date of appointment of · 
typist-cum-computer clerks was for the purpose of bringing 
about uniformity in working hours of the personnel working in 
indoor and outdoor establishments, and its aim was to make 
the organization competitive and efficient, it cannot be said . E 
that it was unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14 of 
the Constitution - A/so, the employer-Port Trust wanted to 
rationalize its activities by having uniform working hours for 
its indoor and outdoor establishment employees, while at the 
same time avoiding labour disputes with employees , F 
appointed before 1-11-1996 - Avoidance of labour disputes 
is a/so a reasonable basis for the classification - Constitution ' 
of India, 1950 - Article 14. 
Service Law - Fixation of working/duty hours by employer 
- Interference by Court - Scope - Held: Fixing of hours of G 
work, provided they do not violate any statutory provision or 
statutory rule, are really management functions -
Court must exercise restraint and not ordinarily interfere 
873 
H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (AIDDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
with such management functions - Judicial Review - Scope. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Equality clause 
- Violation - Reasonable classification - Test to determine 
stated -
Held: Differential treatment, per se, does not 
8 
constitute violation of Article 14 - Article 14 is violated only 
when there is no reasonable basis for differentiation. 
Coastitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction 
under - Held: Is discretionary jurisdiction - The discretion 
should not ordinarily be exercised if an alternative remedy is 
C available. 
Appellant no.1 is a registered Trade Union, which 
represents the employees of respondent no.1- Mumbai 
Port Trust, a body corporate constituted under Section 3 
0 
of the Major Port Trusts Act. The appellant nos.2 and 3 
are working as Typist-cum-Computer Clerks with 
respondent no.1 and were appointed to that post after 
1.11.1996. 
The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court 
E complaining of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution 
on the ground that while Typist-cum-Computer Clerks 
appointed in the Mumbai Port Trust prior to 1.11.1996 
worked for six and half hours a day, Typist-cum-Computer 
Clerks (like the appellants) who had been appointed after 
F 
1.11.1996 were made to work for seven and half hours 
(excluding lunch break). This, it was alleged, was 
discriminatory and violated Article 14 of Constitution. The 
appellants also claimed that this practice was contrary to 
Clause 24 of the settlement dated 6th December, 1994 
G reached between the employees Union and the 
respondent Port, and also violated Section 9A of the 
Industrial Disputes Act. They prayed that either their duty 
hours be reduced by one hour, or else they be given 
overtime allowance for one hour. The instant appeal is 
H 
TRANSPORT & DOCK WORKERS UNION AND ORS. 875 
v. MUMBAI PORT TRUST 
filed against the judgment passed by the High Court in 
A 
the writ petition. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeal was whether the action of the respondent 
no.1 in prescribing different working hours for typist-
8 
cum-computer clerks working in their establishment with 
reference to their date of appointment is contrary to the 
guarantee contained in .Article 14 of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD:1. The writ petition filed by the appellants 
should have been dismissed by the High Court on the 
ground of existence of an alternat_iye remedy under the 
Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that writ 
jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, and the 
D 
discretion should not ordinarily be exercised if there is 
an alternative remedy

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