WORKMEN OF BOMBAY PORT TRUST versus THE TRUST OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 632 · Decided: 18-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

632 
WORKMEN OF BOMBAY PORT TRUST 
v. 
TIIE TRUST OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY 
November 18, 1965 
[P. 
B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
C.J., K. N. 
WANCHOO, 
M. 
HIDAYATULLAH, V. 
RAMASWAMI 
AND 
P. 
SATYANARAYANA 
RAJU, JJ.] 
Minimum Wages Act (11 of 1948), ss. 13 and 14 and 
Minimum 
Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, 7r. 24 and 25-Scope of. 
The respondent had under its control several docks. The trustees 
of the respondent introduced a two shift system of work and that re-
sulted 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 was divided into 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, 
oomplained 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 m:>rk in relation to wages. The Industrial Tribunal held that 
the 
appellants were not able to establish that tho eocisting system of work 
needed any modification. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : 
There was no breach of the provisions 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 was no paral-
lel in the work of the three different sets of crew. [643 HJ 
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 Mini-
mum 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 intervaa of 
rest and spread the 8 or 9 hours, as the case may be, together with 
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 inac-
tion 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 e.opected to display physical activity or sustained attention. 
[641 
B-0) 
, 
, 
H Jlil1\iiillll 
In the present case 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 !he workman was either made to work or the interval of rest was 
not specified. 
The respondent 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; and the Trustees would ·not be guill¥ of infr'!'>' 
tion of the Act by keeping the recess variable so Jong as they opecify 
A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
• 
E 
' 
H 
, 
..... 
A 
WORKMEN v. PORT TRUST (Hidayatullah, !.) 
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 
rmt. 
[641 G-H; 643 B-C, D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 325 of 
1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated September 20, 
B 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. 
Chaudhuri, for the appellants . 
C. B. Agarwa/a, J .. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravin-
e der 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 
D 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, 194 7. The appellants are the work-
men of the Bombay Port Trust, who are and have been represent-
ed in this dispute by the Bombay Port Trust Employees' Union. 
The respondents to this appeal are the trustees of the Port of 
E Bombay. The reference was made on a joint application of the 
parties and the matter in dispute was stated to be : 
F 
"Whether the exis

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