Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. By the written statement of defence the petitioner-company had raised the following contentions :

(1) That it never locked out the workmen;

(2) That the notice for the change of the working hours and rest period was not illegal;

(3) That the workmen themselves had gone on a strike and had not reported for duty at 7-00 A.M. as per the notice;

(4) That the services of the 68 workmen on whose behalf the reference was made have by the notice dated June 25, 1966, been terminated. The lock-out, if any, therefore, ceased to continue and exist. The employment of these 68 workmen was duly terminated and thereafter lock-out could not continue. The termination was, therefore, sufficient defence to all the claims made on behalf of the workmen.

"... that question will have to be considered in all its aspects when and if it is duly raised. At this stage it cannot be said that the services of the 68 workmen or any of them were or were not terminated. I have not decided whether the 68 workmen or any of them have or have not been duly retrenched by it".

In connection with the above findings, Mr. Bhatkal for the petitioner-company has made the following contentions :

(1) That the notice for change of working hours was legal and biding and the finding that the notice was illegal is altogether unjustified.

8. Mr. Nair for respondent No. 2 union emphatically denied these submissions made by Mr. Bhatkal. Mr. Nair relied upon item No. 4 in the Fourth Schedule and S. 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and also on the scheme relating to the working hours and rest intervals contained in Ss. 51 to 61 of the Factories Act, 1948, for the contention that the notice for change of working hours and rest period given by the petitioner-company was illegal. In that connection he relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of North Brook Jute Co. v. Their Workmen, [1960 - I L.L.J. 580], and the observations of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Workmen of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, [1961 - II L.L.J. 526]. He submitted that since the notice of change of hours of work and rests interval was not given in accordance with S. 9-A, the workmen were entitled to agitate the question. The petitioner-company had refused to give employment and work to the workmen who offered their services continuously from day to day. The evidence of the lock-out was in the second notice dated May 23, 1966, whereby the petitioner-company demanded a written undertaking from the workmen not to enter the factory except for working. This demand was made to prevent the workmen from attending duty at 8-30 A.M. in the usual manner. He submitted that the termination of services by the notice dated June 25, 1966, did not put a stop to the lock-out which had been commenced by the petitioner-company by refusal to employ and give work to the sixty-eight concerned workmen. In his submission the notice of termination of services was entirely irrelevant on the question of lifting up of the lock-out.

9. There is no dispute that the petitioner-company brought into effect as from May 23, 1966, change in the hours of work and rest intervals by directing that as from that date the workmen should join duty from 7-00 A.M. to 3-30 P.M. with a lunch break from 11-00 A.M. to 11-30 A.M. instead of from 8-30 A.M. to 5-30 P.M. with a lunch break from 12-30 P.M. to 1-00 P.M. as used to prevail upto May 22, 1966. Section 9-A provides that no employer shall effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workmen in respect of any of the matters specified in the Fourth Schedule without giving to the workmen a notice in the prescribed manner and without expiry of 21 days after giving such notice. Item 4 in the Fourth Schedule reads : "Hours of work and rest intervals." All the items in this Schedule relate to conditions of service for change of which notice is to be given. It is clear on a reading of the Fourth Schedule that the hours of work and rest intervals must be held to be art and parcel of conditions of service. Mr. Batkal submitted that this provision relates to the total quantity of hours of work and rest intervals. In his submission this item does not relate to the timings of the daily hours of work and rest intervals. He, therefore, submitted that the total period of working hours and rest intervals was not altered by the petitioner-company by bringing into effect change in timings of the hours of work and rest intervals. It was, therefore, unnecessary for the petitioner-company to comply with the provisions in S. 9-A and give notice under that section in the manner prescribed. Now, there appears to be no substance in this submission. The matter of the quantity of hours of work and rest intervals as regards industrial factories is in detailed particulars covered by the provisions in Ss. 51 to 61 of the Factories Act. This very matter is as regards shops and establishments covered by S. 13 and other sections of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The timings of the hours of work and rest intervals would be a matter of great consequence to the workmen employed in a factory. The timings could not be altered in an obnoxious manner so that the workmen could never approve of the same. The timings could thus be very unreasonably fixed only with ulterior motives. This could be done without changing the quantity of hours of work and rest intervals. To avoid such consequences, in the Fourth Schedule item 4 relating to hours of work and rest intervals is included under the heading "Conditions of service for change of which notice is to be given" under S. 9-A of the Act.