Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Govt. Photo Litho Press on 6 July, 2017

Author: K.M.Thaker

Bench: K.M.Thaker

                   C/SCA/8333/1991                                                ORDER



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8333 of 1991
         ==========================================================
                         STATE OF GUJARAT....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus
                     GOVT. PHOTO LITHO PRESS....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR VISHRUT JANI, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         (MR KS JHAVERI), ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER

                                        Date : 06/07/2017


                                         ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr.Jani, learned AGP for the petitioner  State.   No   one   has   attended   final   hearing   on  behalf of the respondent union. 

2. In present petition, the petitioner State has  challenged   award   dated   30.11.1983   passed   by   the  learned   Labour   Court   at   Ahmedabad   in   Reference  No.156   of   1982.     The   petitioner   State   has   also  challenged   order   dated   23.1.1991   passed   by   the  learned   Labour   Court   in   Misc.   Civil   Application  No.82 of 1984. 

3. On   examination   of   the   record   and   more  Page 1 of 9 HC-NIC Page 1 of 9 Created On Sun Jul 23 15:46:01 IST 2017 C/SCA/8333/1991 ORDER particularly on reading the award, it has emerged  that   on   behalf   of   the   employees   working   in  drawing   section   of   the   Government   Photo   Litho  Press,   dispute   was   raised   by   present   respondent  union in respect of the demand that working hours  of   the   employees   employed   in   drawing   section  should be reduced to 6 hours (from 7 ½ hours) and  should   be   synchronized   within   the   working   hours  for  other  employees  (of other  department   in the  Press)   from   10.30   a.m.   to   5.30   p.m.   or  alternatively   the   said   employees   should   be   paid  special allowance at Rs.26/­.

4. The petitioner State did not accept the said  demand.     Therefore,   conciliation   proceedings  under   the   Act   commenced   and   on   its   failure  appropriate   government   referred   the   dispute   for  adjudication   to   the   learned   Labour   Court   at  Ahmedabad. 

5. The   learned   Labour   Court   adjudicated   the  dispute and vide impugned award dated 30.11.1983,  the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner  Page 2 of 9 HC-NIC Page 2 of 9 Created On Sun Jul 23 15:46:01 IST 2017 C/SCA/8333/1991 ORDER State   to   reduce   the   working   hours   of   employees  employed in drawing section to 6 hours from 7 ½  hours and to fix the time from 10.30 a.m. to 5.30  p.m.  or alternatively  to  pay Rs.26/­   as special  allowance to the said employees.  

6. Feeling   aggrieved   by   the   said   award,   the  petitioner State filed present petition. 

7. As mentioned above, no one has appeared for  the respondent.  

8. The petition is not contested at the stage of  final hearing. 

9. Before proceeding further, it is not out of  place to note that timings of shift or the matter  relating to working hours of employees is within  the   purview   of   employer's   discretion,   of   course  subject   to   maximum   hours   prescribed   by   law.   If  the   establishment   falls   within   purview   of  definition   of   the   term   'factory',   then   maximum  working   hours   should   be   fixed   in   light   of   the  terms of the Factories Act, whereas in respect of  Page 3 of 9 HC-NIC Page 3 of 9 Created On Sun Jul 23 15:46:01 IST 2017 C/SCA/8333/1991 ORDER the  establishment  which  would  be covered   by the  provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishment  Act, the employer would be obliged to fix working  hours within the maximum time permitted under the  Bombay   Shops   and   Establishment   Act   and   on   the  working   hours   of   the   employees   will   have   to   be  fixed   accordingly.     The   employer   would   be   at  liberty   to   fix   working   hours   to   suit   its  activity, so long as the working hours are within  the maximum permissible limit prescribed by law. 

10. So far as the employees concerned in present  petition are concerned, their place of employment  would be covered within the purview of definition  of the term 'factory' under the Factories Act and  that,   therefore,   in   view   of   Section   54,   the  employer   will   be   entitled   to   fix   the   working  hours / shift timings, in view of Section 54 and  within   the   purview   of   maximum   permissible   limit  of   8­9   hours   as   prescribed   under   the   Factories  Act. In light of the provisions under Section 54  read   with   Sections   55   and   56,   the   employer   can  Page 4 of 9 HC-NIC Page 4 of 9 Created On Sun Jul 23 15:46:01 IST 2017 C/SCA/8333/1991 ORDER also   provide   for   spread   hours.     So   long   as  prescribed   limit   of   maximum   number   of   working  hours   -   as   prescribed   by   law   -   is   honoured   and  followed   by   the   employer,   there   will   be   little  room   for   Court   to   interfere   with   employer's  discretion and decision. 

11. On reading the impugned award, it comes out  that   the   learned   Labour   Court   adjudicated   the  matter without having regard to the said aspects  and   the   learned   Labour   Court   decided   the   case  only   on   the   premise   that   in   other   sections   the  working   hours   of   the   employees   were   different  than the working hours fixed by the employer in  case   of   employees   working   in   drawing   section.  This is done without comparing the working patter  of different sections / departments and nature of  work   in   different   departments   and/or   difference  of   wages   of   employees   in   different   departments.  Only on above mentioned ground the learned Labour  Court interfered with the employer's prerogative  and discretion.

Page 5 of 9 HC-NIC Page 5 of 9 Created On Sun Jul 23 15:46:01 IST 2017 C/SCA/8333/1991 ORDER

12. Besides   this,   another   relevant   aspect   which  emerges   in   present   case   is   that   the   subject  matter   of   the   dispute   i.e.   working   hours   would  not   fall   within   the   jurisdiction   of   learned  Labour Court.  

13. According   to   the   provisions   under   the  Industrial   Disputes   Act,   the   subjects   for  adjudication   which   would   fall   within   purview   of  Labour   Courts   are   prescribed   under   Second  Schedule of the Act which is framed in light of  the provisions contained under Section 7

14. The subject of hours of work is not covered  within any item mentioned in Second Schedule.  

15. On   the   other   hand   the   subject   which   would  fall within purview of jurisdiction of Industrial  Tribunal,   is   prescribed   under   Third   Schedule  which   is   framed   in   light   of   Section   7A   of   the  Act.  

16. On   reading   Third   Schedule   it   comes   out  Page 6 of 9 HC-NIC Page 6 of 9 Created On Sun Jul 23 15:46:01 IST 2017 C/SCA/8333/1991 ORDER clearly   that   subject   related   to   'hours   of   work  and rest intervals' falls within purview of Third  Schedule   (at   Item   No.3   in   Third   Schedule)   and  that,   therefore,   the   said   subject   would   come  within purview of Industrial Tribunal and not of  Labour   Court   and   that,   therefore,   the   Labour  Court   ought   to   have   decided   this   issue   before  passing the award.

17. Even the said aspect is not considered by the  learned   Labour   Court   while   adjudicating   and  deciding   the   reference   and   while   passing   the  award.   The   said   issues   would   arise   in   present  case in light of the challenge against the award.  It   is   another   matter   that   the   said   contentions  have been raised in the petition. 

18. Be   that   as   it   may   it   is   not   necessary   to  decide the said issues and controversy in view of  the   submissions   by   learned   AGP   and   in   light   of  the letter dated 3.7.2017.  

19. On   strength   of   the   communication   dated  Page 7 of 9 HC-NIC Page 7 of 9 Created On Sun Jul 23 15:46:01 IST 2017 C/SCA/8333/1991 ORDER 3.7.2017, Mr.Jani, learned AGP submitted that all  employees   in   drawing   sections   have   retired   on  superannuation.   Thereafter   the   said   posts   have  not   been   filled   up   and   actually   the   posts   have  been abolished in light of subsequent automation  and   modernization   of   the   department.     According  to learned AGP, the union is also not active in  the   petitioner   Litho   Press   and   any   cause   to  prosecute  the  petition   now does  not survive  and  in light of subsequent developments the petition  is   rendered   infructuous.   Learned   AGP   tendered  communication dated 3.7.2017 on record.  

20. In  view  of  the  said  communication,  Mr.Jani,  learned   AGP   submitted   that   the   petition   is  rendered   infructuous   and   it   may   be   disposed   of  accordingly.

21. In   view   of   the   said   submission   by   learned  AGP,   present   petition   is   disposed   of   as  infructuous.     Rule   is   discharged.     Ad­interim  relief, if any, stands vacated.

Page 8 of 9 HC-NIC Page 8 of 9 Created On Sun Jul 23 15:46:01 IST 2017 C/SCA/8333/1991 ORDER (K.M.THAKER, J.) Bharat Page 9 of 9 HC-NIC Page 9 of 9 Created On Sun Jul 23 15:46:01 IST 2017