Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors vs Mumbai Port Trust & Anr

8. The appellant no.1 is a registered Trade Union, which represents the employees of the respondent no.1 - Mumbai Port Trust, a body corporate constituted under Section 3 of the Major Port Trusts Act. The appellant nos.2 and 3 are working as Typist-cum- Computer Clerks with the respondent no.1 and were appointed to that post after 1.11.1996. The case of the appellants, in short, is that as regards the employees who were recruited as Typist-cum-Computer Clerks before 1.11.1996, their duty hours are six and half hours per day, whereas for the personnel who were recruited as Typist-cum- Computer Clerks after 1.11.1996 they are seven and half hours. According to the appellants, this is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The appellants also claim that this practice is contrary to Clause 24 of the settlement dated 6th December, 1994 reached between the employees Union and the respondent Port, and also violates Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellants prayed that either their duty hours be reduced by one hour, or else they be given overtime allowance for one hour. 4

9. The reply of the respondent-Port is that the duty hours of the Typist-cum-Computer Clerks recruited before 1.11.1996 is seven hours per day, which includes half an hour lunch break, while the duty hours for the Typist-cum-Computer Clerks recruited after 1.11.1996 it is eight hours per day with half an hour lunch break. Thus, according to the respondent no.1, the difference in the duty hours of the personnel recruited before 1.11.1996 and after 1.11.1996 is one hour. According to the respondent no.1, though there is no settlement reached in this behalf, as a matter of practice and usage the duty hours of the personnel in indoor establishment was six and half hours. However, due to change in the technology and with introduction of privatization and setting up private Ports with whom the respondent-Port has to compete, the respondent-Port decided as a policy to have uniform working hours for the personnel working on the indoor establishment and the out door establishment. It is claimed that from the beginning so far as personnel working on out door establishment are concerned, their duty hours were seven and a half hours and therefore, to bring about uniformity in the duty hours of the personnel working on the indoor establishment and out door establishment, a policy decision was taken to change the duty hours 5 of personnel working in the indoor establishment. However, in order to avoid any litigation it was decided that the working hours of the personnel who were in the indoor establishment, will not be disturbed. While making new recruitment of personnel in the indoor establishment, it was made clear that they will have to work for eight hours, and it is only on acceptance of that condition by them that they were given employment. According to the respondent no.1, this condition was accepted by the personnel who were appointed on indoor establishment after 1.11.1996.

(iii) They were to give their acceptance of this term, and it was only on their acceptance of the term that they were given appointment;

24. Should this vagueness or uncertainty be allowed to remain so that Judges may have total freedom or discretion? We think not. The law should be, as far as possible, clear and certain so that people know where they stand and conduct their affairs accordingly. Also, if total freedom is given to Judges to decide according to their own individual notions and fancies the law will run riot.

43. In our opinion it is not prudent or pragmatic for the Court to insist on absolute equality when there are diverse situations and contingencies, as in the present case. In view of the inherent complexities involved in modern society, some free play must be given to the executive authorities in this connection.

51. In administrative matters the Court should, therefore, ordinarily defer to the judgment of the administrators unless the decision is clearly violative of some statute or is shockingly arbitrary. In this connection, Justice Frankfurter while Professor of Law at Harvard University wrote in `The Public and its Government' -

57. For the reasons given above there is no merit in this appeal and hence it is dismissed.