Case: Pfizer (P) Ltd. Bombay Vs. The Workmen

that more than one shift was contemplated by the Standing Order. In this connection, we would not be prepared to uphold the extreme stand taken by both the parties. We cannot hold that because the standing order contemplates the adoption of more than one shift, it is entirely and absolutely in the discretion of the management to make the change without due scrutiny by industrial adjudication, and so, the extreme stand taken by the appellant cannot be upheld; similarly, we cannot accept the contention that because the introduction of 3 shifts would mark a departure from the pattern prevailing in the pharmaceutical industry, the chance cannot be permitted. After all, the question must be considered in the light of relevant facts adduced before the Court, and in doing so, the importance and the necessity of more production must be borne in mind. We are therefore, satisfied that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the appellants case for the introduction of three shifts.28. As we have already pointed out, the appellant was always willing to consider the question of paying additional amounts to the respondents either by way of increase in wages or by way of compensation in consequence of the change proposed to be made in the working structure of the factory. In fact, we were told that though the Tribunal has ordered that the appellant should pay to the night workers 10% over their basic wages and dearness allowance for the days on which they are required to work in the third shift, the appellant is paying 12% and it is similarly paying 8% to those who work in the second shift. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was not prepared to submit to an order in regard to the additional adequate payment which should be made to the employees consequent upon the introduction of the third shift. Since this matter cannot be decided by us in appeal, we direct that the case should be sent back to the Tribunal which dealt with this dispute for its decision on this question. The Tribunal should allow the parries to lead evidence if they so desire, should hear them and should decide what additional payment should be made to the employees either by way of increase in the wages or by way of compensation, or otherwise in consequence of the change in the working time table of the factory resulting from the introduction of the third shift. The 3 shifts will come into operation after this issue has been finally decided by the Tribunal. Until then, the interim arrangement sanctioned by the award will continue. We trust the Tribunal will deal with the issue remitted to it as expeditiously as possible.29. That takes us to the appeal preferred by the respondents in respect of the reduction of holidays made by the award. We have already seen that the appellant gives to its employees all the public holidays under the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the relevant year, the number of such public holidays was 27. The Tribunal has taken the view that the number of public holidays thus allowed is unreasonably high and has ordered that they should be reduced to 10. Mr. Sule for the respondents contends that there is no justification for this reduction. He urges that the employees have enjoyed this benefit as their term of service condition and no case has been made out for the reduction in that behalf. He has also relied on the fact that the Tribunal reduced the number of holidays substantially because he was not prepared to allow the appellants case for the introduction of the 3rd shift or for the addition in working hours and he argues that if we allow the introduction of the 3rd shift, there would be no justification for confirming the award made by the Tribunal in respect of holidays. There is some force in this latter contention. It is true that the Tribunal made a drastic reduction in the number of holidays partly because he refused the appellant permission to add to the working hours.30. In dealing with the question of paid holidays, it may be relevant to remember that the holidays declared under the Negotiable Instruments Act are usually applicable to Government institutions only and they have certain financial and statutory implications envisaged by the Act itself. The commercial establishments and factories do not usually adopt these holidays and so, it would not be reasonable to insist that the appellant is bound to grant holidays as sanctioned by the Negotiable Instruments Act. Besides, it is now generally accepted that there are too many public holidays in our country and that when the need for industrial production is urgent and paramount, it may be advisable to reduce the number of such holidays in industrial concerns. In dealing with the present appeals, the need for more production which has weighed in our minds in considering the question of 3 shifts, cannot be ignored. It is true that the Maharashtra Government seems to have adopted a very liberal policy in the matter of public holidays. In 1961, for instance, the said Government had declared 28 public holidays out of which 3 happened to fall on Sundays. It may be noticed that other State Governments have shown a tendency to reduce these holidays. U.P., for instance, had 18 public holidays, Andhra Pradesh had 17, Mysore 15 and Madras 14 in 1961. According to the Government of India, the number of public holidays is generally limited to 16. It is obvious that this question does not admit of a categorical answer one way or the other. It has to be decided on an ad hoc basis, bearing in mind all the relevant facts. Having considered all the relevant facts in the present case, we are disposed to think that the number of public holidays which are granted by the appellant to the respondents should be reduced from those sanctioned under the Negotiable Instruments Act to 16 every year.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]This grievance is, however, not well-founded because it appears from the record that the appellant was willing to pay for night work and was prepared to consider extra payment for third shift, but the respondents were not agreeable to consider that proposal because they were, on principle, opposed to the introduction of threethe grievance that the respondents would be wholly denied the overtime wages to which they would be entitled under the present arrangements loses much of its validity. We have already noticed that the maximum working hours under the present system in the factory of the appellant is 43 per week and it ranges between 42.05 to 43 hrs. and in no case, can the working hours be increased beyond 48. In fact, as we have already set out, according to the plan which the appellant wants to introduce, there would be an additional load of 1 1/4 working hours, the net additional working load being of the order of 55 mts. per week. In considering the question about the pattern of working arrangements in the pharmaceutical industry in the region, these facts cannot be ignored.It appears that in most of these factories, security and maintenance departments work three shifts. In Sandoz India Ltd., Thana, the pharma plant works 3 shifts. Similarly, in Raptakos Brett and Co. Pvt. Ltd., the Dextrose Maltose section works 3 shifts. In Merck Sharp and Dohme of India Ltd., Chemical manufacturing process goes on under 3 shifts. Similarly, in Parke Davis India Ltd. Chemical Product Operators work 3 shifts besides boiler serang, watchmen and electricians. Sarabhai Chemical, Baroda, have some departments working 3 shifts. Alembic, Baroda, have some departments working 3 shifts. Hindusthan Anti-biotic Poona have some departments working 3 shifts. Glaxo, Thana works 3 shifts. Lederle, Bulsar, works 3 shifts. It is true that the Tribunal was not prepared to consider any concerns situated outside Greater Bombay, but in dealing with the larger issue as to whether it would be permissible to introduce 3 shifts at least in respect of the chemical sections of the pharmaceutical industry, the Tribunal should not have adopted this rigid attitude. Therefore, on the material placed before us, it is clear that the chemical sections of the pharmaceutical factories do work 3 shifts and this would have a direct bearing on the appellants case in regard to P.A.S. section of its factory. Besides, as we have already observed, in dealing with the question about 3 shifts which would inevitably lead to more production, the background of the imperative necessity of today cannot at all bedo not see how this statement can materially affect the main point made by Dr. Joshi that the relevant processes beginning with precipitation which take 20 hrs. must be continuously attended to. It is true that the respondents attempted to contradict Dr. Joshis Statement by examining Mr. Pillai who was working in the P.A.S. department under Mr. Moeller. But Mr. Pillai is obviously not a technical man and it would be futile to suggest that the statements made by him should be preferred to those made by Dr. Joshi. Besides, it is significant that when he was cross-examined, he virtually conceded that the six important processes would take at least 18 1/2 hours and that itself would make it necessary to introduce three shifts. In this connection, we ought to add that the statements made by Dr. Joshi in regard to the time occupied by each process are supported by the contemporaneous record kept by the laboratory workers.This record was produced by Dr. Joshi and it was shown to Mr. Pillai who virtually refused to look at it. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal was in error in holding that Dr. Joshis evidence did not establish the appellants case that the process of producing P.A.S. is a continuous process and in order to improve its quality and to avoid rejection of a large percentage of the product it is necessary that three shifts must be introduced in the session dealing with it. In fact the finding made by the Tribunal in this behalf shows that the Tribunal did not really consider seriously the value of Dr. Joshis evidence and was prepared to accept Mr. Pillais statements though they are plainly partisan statements made by a person without any technical knowledge. Therefore, there can be no doubt whatever that the appellant is entitled to start 3 shifts in the P.A.S. section and produce P.A.S. in larger quantities and of a better quality.At Chandigarh, there are no sufficient production facilities, and, besides, it is a different type of manufacturing unit. Thus, the material available to the appellants factory in Bombay from its sister factory in Chandigarh cannot be promptly dealt with, because the pharmaceutical section is working only in one shift.20. Mr. Treharne has also stated that a large number of orders are outstanding because the production capacity in Bombay is not adequate; and that means that the appellant is continually losing business through its lack of production facility and is unable to meet the demand of needy patients. This factor also adversely affects the appellants position vis-a-vis its competitors; and the witness added that the appellant sometimes finds that it is unable to quote for substantial Government and hospital tenders. Under these circumstances, particularly at the present time when the need for production of beneficent drugs is so great, it is difficult to resist the appellants claim that it should he allowed to introduce 3 shifts in order to produce more drugs and thus meet the requirements of the community. If the two departments are allowed to work 3 shifts. it would not be reasonable to hold that the department dealing in packing, filling, washing, tablet and capsules should not keep pace. The activities of these departments are integrated, and if the object in allowing the appellant to start 3 shifts in its manufacturing departments both chemical and pharmaceutical, is to encourage and enable it to produce more goods, then that object would be assisted if the subsidiary department is also allowed to work 3 shifts. Therefore, we are inclined to take the view that the claim of the appellant to introduce 3 shifts cannot today becan be no doubt that industrial employees are entitled to look forward to a 5-day week and work only by day. Two days rest at the end of every week would afford adequate opportunities to the employees to take part in cultural and recreational activities and would tend to make their work for the remaining 5-days more satisfactory and efficient. Similarly, working at night may, on theoretical grounds, not he desirable. But these are goals which may be reached after we attain an adequately high level in our national economy and industrial development. In the context of today, it would be unreasonable to approach this problem in a purely doctrinaire spirit. If, today, an employer desires to produce more goods which would meet the requirements of the community and is prepared to compensate the employees for the additional work involved in the process, industrial adjudication would be reluctant to discourage the employer and would assist both capital and labour to devise ways to co-operate with each other and produce more. Therefore, the academic arguments urged by Mr. Sule cannot be treated as effective for the purpose of deciding the present appeals.We do not propose to express any definite opinion on this theoretical controversy. As this Court has repeatedly observed, in dealing with industrial adjudication, it would be undesirable to reach conclusions purely on doctrinaire or theoretical considerations. Besides, as we have already emphasised, the adoption of such a theoretical or doctrinaire approach has, in the context of today, lost some of its validity. Therefore, we do not think the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the appellants claim for the introduction of 3 shifts should be rejected on the ground that it would involve the respondents working at night.25. Incidentally, we may add that from the record, it appears that the appellant is an enlightened employer and that the terms and conditions of service offered by it to the respondents are, on the whole, very fair. It also appears that in the factory itself, the appellant makes efforts to create conditions which would be conducive to the efficient working of the respondents. Miss Kolpe who has been examined by the respondents has stated that aseptic conditions are maintained in sterile areas and the room has to be kept in sterile condition. The workmen assigned to the job spray the rooms with certain chemicals. They do swabbing of machines, walls, windows, and some other workmen have to apply denatured spirit to machine parts before the said machines are used. Cleaning of the cabinet and machines parts has also to be done. It is true that a grievance was made on behalf of the respondents that there are no exhaust fans working in the night shift and that as a result, body itch may be caused if M. A. P. and postassium carbonate are handled barehanded. The appellants explanation was that the workers are given hand gloves and when complaints were made about body itch, the medical survey pointed out that they were not justified. We trust that when the appellant starts 3 shifts, it will take all reasonable precautions to make the conditions of work for the respondents healthy and conducive to the efficient discharge of their duties.26. There is one more minor point which still remains to be considered. It was urged before the Tribunal on behalf of the respondents that the time-table of factory working hours which the appellant proposes to introduce after bringing into force the three shift system would begin at 7.20 in the morning and that would cause inconvenience to the girl employees, and in support of this plea, two girl employees were examined. Miss Desai stated that she stays at Thana and if she had to join duty at 7.20 A.M., she would have to start earlier than 5 A.M. from her house. According to her, there is another girl employee of the factory who stays at Thana. Miss Rodriguies, who also supported the plea of inconvenience, stated that if the work were to begin at 7.20 A.M., she would not be able to get sleep because after she returns home she has to do tutions in order to help her family, and that means she cannot go to bed before midnight. Evidence was also led to show that in the locality where the factory is situated, if the girls were to go early in the morning, they stood the risk of being molested by bad characters. We are not impressed by this evidence. In considering the plea of inconvenience raised by the respondents, it would not be reasonable to rely upon stray cases of girl employees who stay away from Bombay, as, for instance, at Thana, or whose unfortunate economic condition compels them to work after factory hours. On the whole, it can be stated without any hesitation that 7.20 A.M. is not an unduly early hour for work in Bombay. Besides, it is relevant to remember that this hour has been taken as a starting hour having regard to the convenience of transport available in the locality. The Factory Manager, Mr. Pillai whom the appellant examined, has stated that he prepared a summary of the bus and train timings and came to the conclusion that 7.20 A.M. would be convenient to all the workmen. Therefore we do not think the ground of inconvenience on which the Tribunal has relied in rejecting the appellants case for 3 shifts, can be sustained.27. In this connection, we may incidentally refer to the fact that the Standing Order 10(1) (a) of the Standing Orders framed by the appellant clearly provides that more than one shift may be worked in any department or a section of a department at the discretion of the Manager; and it adds that in such cases, workmen shall be liable to he transferred from one shift to another. There is no doubt that the Standing Orders sanctioned by The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, l946 (No. 20 of 1946) constitute statutory terms and conditions of service between the employer and his employees, and so, it is open to the appellant to suggest that when the respondents took up their employment with it, they know that more shifts than one can be started by the management in its discretion. It is quite true that though the relevant Standing Order enables the appellant to introduce more shifts than one, if a dispute is raised by the employees in that behalf and is referred for industrial adjudication, the Industrial Tribunal may have to consider the reasonableness of the change proposed to be made by the management. It is obvious that additional shifts may result in additional workload being imposed on the employees, and in that sense, may constitute a change in the conditions of service. Therefore, it would be open to the Industrial Tribunal to examine the reasonableness of the change proposed to be made. But in dealing with this question, it would not be irrelevant to bear in mind the fact that more than one shift was contemplated by the Standing Order. In this connection, we would not be prepared to uphold the extreme stand taken by both the parties. We cannot hold that because the standing order contemplates the adoption of more than one shift, it is entirely and absolutely in the discretion of the management to make the change without due scrutiny by industrial adjudication, and so, the extreme stand taken by the appellant cannot be upheld; similarly, we cannot accept the contention that because the introduction of 3 shifts would mark a departure from the pattern prevailing in the pharmaceutical industry, the chance cannot be permitted. After all, the question must be considered in the light of relevant facts adduced before the Court, and in doing so, the importance and the necessity of more production must be borne in mind. We are therefore, satisfied that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the appellants case for the introduction of three shifts.28. As we have already pointed out, the appellant was always willing to consider the question of paying additional amounts to the respondents either by way of increase in wages or by way of compensation in consequence of the change proposed to be made in the working structure of the factory. In fact, we were told that though the Tribunal has ordered that the appellant should pay to the night workers 10% over their basic wages and dearness allowance for the days on which they are required to work in the third shift, the appellant is paying 12% and it is similarly paying 8% to those who work in the second shift. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was not prepared to submit to an order in regard to the additional adequate payment which should be made to the employees consequent upon the introduction of the third shift. Since this matter cannot be decided by us in appeal, we direct that the case should be sent back to the Tribunal which dealt with this dispute for its decision on this question. The Tribunal should allow the parries to lead evidence if they so desire, should hear them and should decide what additional payment should be made to the employees either by way of increase in the wages or by way of compensation, or otherwise in consequence of the change in the working time table of the factory resulting from the introduction of the third shift. The 3 shifts will come into operation after this issue has been finally decided by the Tribunal. Until then, the interim arrangement sanctioned by the award will continue. We trust the Tribunal will deal with the issue remitted to it as expeditiously as possible.29. That takes us to the appeal preferred by the respondents in respect of the reduction of holidays made by the award. We have already seen that the appellant gives to its employees all the public holidays under the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the relevant year, the number of such public holidays was 27. The Tribunal has taken the view that the number of public holidays thus allowed is unreasonably high and has ordered that they should be reduced to 10.There is some force in this latter contention. It is true that the Tribunal made a drastic reduction in the number of holidays partly because he refused the appellant permission to add to the working hours.30. In dealing with the question of paid holidays, it may be relevant to remember that the holidays declared under the Negotiable Instruments Act are usually applicable to Government institutions only and they have certain financial and statutory implications envisaged by the Act itself. The commercial establishments and factories do not usually adopt these holidays and so, it would not be reasonable to insist that the appellant is bound to grant holidays as sanctioned by the Negotiable Instruments Act. Besides, it is now generally accepted that there are too many public holidays in our country and that when the need for industrial production is urgent and paramount, it may be advisable to reduce the number of such holidays in industrial concerns. In dealing with the present appeals, the need for more production which has weighed in our minds in considering the question of 3 shifts, cannot be ignored. It is true that the Maharashtra Government seems to have adopted a very liberal policy in the matter of public holidays. In 1961, for instance, the said Government had declared 28 public holidays out of which 3 happened to fall on Sundays. It may be noticed that other State Governments have shown a tendency to reduce these holidays. U.P., for instance, had 18 public holidays, Andhra Pradesh had 17, Mysore 15 and Madras 14 in 1961. According to the Government of India, the number of public holidays is generally limited to 16. It is obvious that this question does not admit of a categorical answer one way or the other. It has to be decided on an ad hoc basis, bearing in mind all the relevant facts. Having considered all the relevant facts in the present case, we are disposed to think that the number of public holidays which are granted by the appellant to the respondents should be reduced from those sanctioned under the Negotiable Instruments Act to 16 every year.