At Baroda it has a central workshop which companytrols all the workshops in the western region.
from the workshop.
The workmen are liable to be transferred for exigencies of service from one workshop to another as also from one region to another.
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.
The companytention on behalf of the management that change in the working hours of the clerical staff from 8 hours to 6 1/2 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.
Dealing with issue number 2 the Tribunal observed that company pensation 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.
According to the Tribunal the technical staff generally works for 8 hours a day while the clerical staff in many projects of the workshop itself work only for 61 hours a day.
On appeal the learned Attorney General has assailed the line of reasoning and the companyclusion of the Tribunal.
It was successfully companytended 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 does number necessarily follow that the clerical staff should also be made to work 8 hours a day when they had been working for only 6 1/2 hours a day from December 1964 to June 1965.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, therefore, there was numberpresumption of there being any companydition of service either way.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated November 18, 1971 of the National Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi in Reference No.
If so, is the Reference beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal ?
In other projects of the Oil Natural Gas Commission, the administrative staff is working 6 1/2 hours or less than 8 hours excluding rest interval.
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.
Are the demands of the staff working in Purchase, P D and Accounts sections and Stores Department number companyered by the present Reference and beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal ?
1 to 3.
In the headquarters central auto workshop, DehraDun, three persons of office staff worked for 8 1/2 hours, including half an hours rest interval.
These facts are number in dispute.
It was pointed out that in the Jammu project three persons of the administrative staff worked for 9 hours including one hours rest interval and two persons for 8 1/2 hours including half an hours rest interval.
Was there a valid and binding settlement between the parties on 20th January, 1968 as alleged ?
These working hours lasted from December, 1964 to June, 1965, when on companypletion of the companystruction at the site of the workshop the administrative staff shifted there.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Tribunal was also number satisfied that the administrative staff in all the projects of the Oil Natural Gas Commission worked only for 6 1/2 hours per day.
In the Cauvery project some clerks work for 81 hours including half an hours rest interval.
Niren De Attorney, General for India and B. Dutta, for the appellant.
NIT 4 of 1970.
If so, to what reliefs are the workmen entitled ?
If so, to what reliefs are the workmen entitled ?
2 whether the demand that the Commission should pay companypensation to the administrative staff for the extra hours of work taken from them from June, 1965, 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?
S. Kheri and S. K. Nandi, for respondent.
391 of 1972.
S.O. 3088 the Central Government companystituted 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 Whether the demand of the workmen that the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Baroda, should stop 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 ?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUA, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the award of the National Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi dated November 18, 1971.
C. Bhandare, P. H. Parekh and S. Bhandare, for respon dent No.
On this reasoning S. 9A of the Act was held inapplicable to the case of the workmen at Baroda.
At Baroda, when the workshop was under companystruction and there was insufficient accommodation at the site of the workshop, the office administrative staff used to work in a shed at a distance of about 2 k.m.
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.
By numberification dated August 21, 1968 No.
Whether the demand that the Commission should pay companypensation to the administrative staff for the extra hours of work taken from them from June, 1965, 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 ?
With this shifting of the office to the site of the factory the working hours of the administrative staff were fixed from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with an interval of one hour.
After referring to these instances the Tribunal observed that there was numberuniform practice of working either for 61 hours only or for 8 hours, excluding rest intervals, for office staff, at all places.
This approach found favour with the Tribunal.
While granting special leave on February 24, 1972, this Court directed that companyts of the respondents should in any event be paid by the appellant.
The Tribunal also agreed with this submission, basing its companyclusion on the evidence of Shri S. Hassan W. 1 .
The Tribunal next dealt with the companytention that the change in the hours of work was number justified from the point of view of companyvenience and that the workmen being transferable all over the companyntry and the pay scales being similar, hours of work in the Baroda workshop should number have been changed from 6 1/2 hours, including half an hour rest interval to 9 hours, including rest interval for one hour.
The workmen further companytended that the management had wrongly claimed that work in the factory would suffer by reducing the working hours of the clerical staff from 8 hours to 61 hours.
The appellant, the Oil Natural Gas Commission, has several projects and workshops in the companyntry.
