THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. Nos. 1470, 1493 and 1865 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: In these writ petitions, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration; hence, they are disposed of by this common order. In W.P. 1865 of 2003, APSRTC Staff & Workers Union represented by its General Secretary is the petitioner and in other two writ petitions, individual drivers are the petitioners. The grievance of petitioners is that as per Section 13 of the Motor Vehicles Transport Workers Act (for short, ‘the Act’), they are obligated to work for 8 to 10 hours a day and not more than that; whereas, respondent-Corporation is engaging them for more than 10 hours a day and, therefore, respondents have violated Section 13 of the Act. There is no necessity of going into all the details. In the counter filed by the respondents it is stated that the General Secretary, APSRTC National Mazdoor Union served a strike notice on 21.11.2002 with a charter of seven demands proposing to go on two days’ strike on or after 4.12.2002 for settlement of their demands. One of their demands related to “arrangement of duties of drivers and conductors in compliance with the Motor Transport Workers’ Act”. The Additional Commissioner of Labour and State Conciliation Officer convened conciliation meetings on the issues raised in the strike notice on 18.12.2002, 27.12.2002, 3.1.2003 and 16.1.2003. It was submitted before the Conciliation Officer that the Corporation is passing through a critical fall in revenue and monetary losses. To augment passenger occupancy and to run more passenger friendly services, the Management felt that the staff may be utilized for extra hours for which the employees are given suitable time-off. This arrangement is finding favour with the employees also who are willing to work extra hours and take suitable time off. The petitioner-Union should cooperate in running the Corporation and when the employees are willing to work extra hours and take suitable time off, they should not have any objection. The management is assuring that the employees are given suitable time off for extra hours of work and the revenue from these services has also increased and cancellation of services has also become nil. However, in the minutes of meeting held in the chambers of the Additional Commissioner of Labour on 16.1.2003 between the Management of APSRTC and the APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, the following position was recorded and the conciliation proceedings closed: “The Management representatives reiterated that they have stated in the earlier meeting and further stated that if the Union gives names of the employees who are not willing to work extra hours, they will not be engaged. The management stated that the employees are working extra hours since they have advantage in taking time off and they will strictly follow the assurance given earlier, that only willing workers will be engaged to work extra hours. The management representatives once again informed that every one should work towards revival of the Corporation, and all efforts should be for generating more revenue to the Corporation so that the current year loss of 120 crores can be reduced”. Further, Rule 27 of the Motor Transport Workers Rules,1963 reads as under: “27. Hours of work: i) The Chief Inspector may on written application from an employer, subject to such conditions and for such period as he may think fit, permit Motor Transport Workers to work for more than 8 hours in any day or 48 hours in any week, but in no case more than 10 hours in a day and 54 hours in a week-- i) on any route of 100 kilometers; and ii) on such festive or other occasions as may be notified by the Government in the official Gazette. ii) In any case referred to in the second proviso to Section 13, an employer shall not require or allow any Motor Transport Worker to work for more than 16 hours in a day and 72 hours in a week with atleast 8 consecutive hours of rest between the termination of duty and commencement of the next duty”. It is not the case of the petitioners that suitable time off is not extended to them. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in a given case a driver works only for 15 days a month and every alternate day he is given off in view of the fact that he worked for more than 10 hours a day. It is also stated that those who are willing to work as such are only engaged for such nature of duties and all others are engaged for other duties where they are engaged for 10 hours a day. In view of the above, nothing survives for further adjudication in the writ petitions and they are accordingly closed. However, it is made clear that the respondents will engage only those employees who are willing to work for more than 10 hours a day and avail suitable time off next day. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 10-02-2011. MVB.