Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The two petitioners have been working in the drawing-in department of respondent 2 company as reachers in the second shift and have filed this petition challenging the order passed by the third labour court in Application No. 234 of 1959, dated 10 December, 1959, and confirmed by the Industrial court by its order in Appeal (I.C.) No. 11 of 1960, dated 28 July, 1960.

2. Prior to 1947, there was no system of change-over in the different shifts in the textile mills in Ahmedabad. In 1946, however, a submission bearing No. 9 of 1946 between the Ahmedabad Millowners' Association, Ahmedabad, and the Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, was made before the industrial court at Bombay wherein the industrial court, by an interim award, passed inter alia the following order :

"We therefore hold that mills should be allowed to work three shifts if they want to, with a system of change-over. Ordinarily the period of the three shifts should be as follows :- 
 First shift        ...  7 a.m. to  3 p.m. 
 Second shift       ...  3 p.m. to 11 p.m. 
 Third shift        ... 11 p.m. to  7 a.m.
3. There should be a recess of half-an-hour during each of the three shifts In winter the work may begin at 7-30 a.m. instead of 7 with consequent changes in the other shifts. This will be for a period of one year from 15 February, 1947 at the end of which this matter will be placed again for hearing as to whether the system should be continued or not. In the case of mills working two shifts the working period should be as follows :-
(1) 7 a.m. to 3-30 p.m., and } With half-an-hour's } recess in (2) 3-30 p.m. to 12 mid night, } each shift.

4. In both cases of two shifts as well as three shifts working, there will be a system of change-over at the end of each month by which the workers of the first shift will go over to the second and those of the second to the third and those of the third to the first in rotation. In the case of the two shifts working the day shift and the night shift workers will change in rotation at the end of every month."

16. This would dispose of the petition, but since Sri Vyas has also argued at some length on the other finding of the industrial court, it is but fair that we should deal with that aspect also. That, of course, would arise only if our construction of Ss. 66, 116 and 116A is not a correct construction. The view of both the labour court as well as the industrial court was that the award dated 24 February, 1958 did not alter or modify the decision of the industrial court and that the only thing that the award did was to clarify the original decision of the industrial court. In other words, the contention by respondent 2 company was that even under the award of the industrial court as modified in 1948, no absolute right of change-over was given to the employees working in the second shift irrespective of the fact whether that shift worked fully or not. On the other hand, the argument of Sri Vyas was that such a right was conferred at least so far as workmen in the second shift were concerned and the only change that was made in 1948 was with regard to the third shift. Reliance was placed by Sri Vyas on the observations made in the first decision where it has been stated that in both cases of two shifts as well as three shifts working, there would be a system of change-over at the end of each month. Sri Vyas argued that there was some dispute regarding the interpretation of these words and that on an application made by the Millowners' Association for clarification, the Court then interpreted its award and held that the change-over in three shifts was to be effected where the full number of machines in a department were worked and that where the third shifts worked partially, the change-over was to be effected between the first and the second shifts only. It was argued that the industrial court then was concerned only with a modification in its order as regards the third shift and not as regards the second shift and therefore the company was bound to effect the change-over in the first and the second shifts irrespective of the fact whether the second shift worked fully or not. Sri Vyas then relied upon the decision of the industrial court in Pirbhai Galubhai and others v. Ahmedabad New Textile Mills Company, Ltd., No. 1, Ahmedabad, in Appeal No. 35 of 1949 decided on 6 April, 1949 [1949 I.C.R. 855]. The respondent-company there had stopped the practice of change-over of shifts which used to occur every month under the award dated 7 February, 1947. After the industrial court as aforesaid had held that the award did not cover cases of partial working of the third shift, the respondent-company stopped the change-over between the first and the second shifts on the ground that the second shift was being partially worked and that the award dated 7 February, 1947 did not apply to such a case. The industrial court there held that 'on the facts of the case" there were not sufficient reasons for the management to act as if the Court had made not apply to regarding change-overs at all and therefore they must be deemed to have technically committed an illegal change. We may state that the industrial court there expressed doubt whether the first award intended to cover the right of change-over absolutely irrespective of whether any particular shift worked fully or not, but held against the company there on the ground that if a right of change-over was given in favour of the employees, the Court would not take it away or whittle it down. We are, however, somewhat doubtful whether that was a correct approach and in any event, the learned Judge did not give any reasons for his conclusion. If the award dated 7 February, 1947 as amended in Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1948 were to be closely examined, it is evident that when the first order providing for a change over was made, it was not considered as to whether it should be applied or not to an employer in whose concerned the shift was not working fully. When the clarification was asked for, the Court in so many words stated that -