Hidayatullah, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave against an award dated 20-9-1963 made by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in a reference made by the Government of India under S. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellants are the workmen of the Bombay Port Trust, who are and have been represented in this dispute by the Bombay Port Trust Employees' Union. The respondents to this appeal are the trustees of the Port of Bombay. The reference was made on a joint application of the parties and the matter in dispute was stated to be: "Whether the existing system of work of the shore crew of the Prince's and Victoria Docks under which each shift consists of 8 hours' normal duty, 2 hours' variable recess and 2 hours' overtime needs any modification - The Tribunal, by the award impugned here, held that the Union was not able to establish that the existing system of work needed any modification.
(2.) The Port Trust had under its control several docks. Reference in this judgment will be made to the Prince's and Victoria Docks, the Alexandra Docks, Butcher Island and the Flotilla Crew. These represent different areas of work where different groups of workmen were employed. From the facts appearing on the record it appears that the Trustees first introduced a two-shift system of work in the Alexandra Docks on 30-6-1953 and the same system was extended to the Prince's and Victoria Docks on 15-12-1953,. Previously, the shore crew at all these places worked in a single shift and were liable to be called out at any hour of the day or night. When the two shift system began, each shift of 12 hours was broken up into 8 hours duty. 2 hours variable recess and 2 hours' overtime. The hours of rest were kept variable as they depended on the tides. In 1956 the workmen, who were then represented by the Port Trust General Workers' Union, made a demand for a fixed recess of two hours. The Trustees apprehended that this was a device to get 4 hours' overtime and rejected the demand. The General Workers' Union was informed that if the demand was pressed a three-shift system would be introduced. The workmen then retraced their steps and accepted a 2 hours' variable recess but requested that it should be as near the middle of the shift as possible. The Trustees agreed to accept the hours of rest at fixed hours in the Alexandra Docks but at the Prince's and Victoria Docks they kept it variable agreeing to fix it as near the middle of the duty hours as possible. Under this arrangement the shore crew working at the Prince's and Victoria Docks were informed each day what the period of rest would be on the following day. In explanation of this difference it may be pointed out that the Alexandra Docks work on a system of lock gates which enables the depth of water at the docks to be maintained from day-to-day except in the monsoon months when they work only at high tide. It was thus possible to fix rest hours at the Alexandra Docks for half the crew different from the rest hours of the other half so that a part of the crew was always available on hand. As the lock gates control the depth of water in the Alexandra Docks, fixed hours of rest could be maintained from day-to-day except in the monsoon months when the storm gates had some time to be closed. During these months recess time at the Alexandra Docks was also variable and was made to coincide with the closure of the storm gates. The workmen at the Alexandra Docks seems to have accepted a variable recess of two hours but the Port Trust gave a notice under S. 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25-6-1960 announcing the introduction of variable recess although in the months other than the monsoon months recess was actually at fixed hours. The workmen opposed the change from fixed to variable recess. Meanwhile studies were being made an it was found that the work hours at the different Docks were not equal; they were heavier at the Alexandra Docks than at the other docks. The Trustees, therefore, resolved that the shore crew at the Alexandra Docks should work for 8 hours and that there should be a variable recess of one hour and overtime of three hours should be paid. Thus the 12 hours' shift at the Alexandra Docks was 8 hours of duty, 3 hours' overtime and one hour variable recess. This system was, however, not extended to the Prince's and Victoria Docks and Butcher Island. At these docks 8 hours' duty 2 hours' rest at variable times and 2 hours' overtime were prescribed. The claim of the shore crew at the Prince's and Victoria Docks and Butcher Island for reducing the hours of rest and increasing overtime to three hours was not accepted because the amount of work in the opinion of the Trustees did not justify the change. The Union contended that this division of 12 hours' shift into 8 hours' work, 2 hours' rest and 2 hours' overtime violated the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the so-called period of rest was illusory since, being variable, it was sometimes given right at the commencement of the shift and sometimes at the end, depending on the tides or the exigencies of the work. The Union claimed that a 12 hours' shift should be divided into 8 hours' work and 4 hours' overtime as was the case with the Flotilla Crew. This claim was opposed by the Trustees. According to them, there was no breach of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. They contended that, regard being had to the number of actual work hours, the case of shore crew at the Prince's and Victoria Docks and the Butcher Island could not be compared with that of the crew at the Alexandra Docks or the Flotilla Crew. The Tribunal accepted the entire case part forward on behalf of the Trustees and the Union has appealed to this Court. On behalf of the Union of the learned Solicitor-General has argued the case almost entirely from the legal standpoint and has attempted to establish that the break-up of a 12 hours' shift into 8 hours' duty, 2 hours' rest and 2 hours' overtime offends the Minimum Wages Act. He has in addition submitted that the system of variable recess does not satisfy the requirements of rest which is the basis for fixing statutorily the houses of work in relation to wages.
(3.) The Minimum Wages Act was enacted to enable Government to fix minimum rates of wages in certain employments. Since fixation of minimum wages must taken into account the work-load also, provision must not only be made for prescribing the minimum wage but to correlate it to a specified amount of work. Any extra work beyond the specified work-load must be paid for at a higher or what is known as "overtime" rate. Similarly, intervals of rest must punctuate suitably the hours of work and they must also be provided for in a scheme of the workday of workman. The Minimum Wages Act makes provision for all these matters either by itself or through Rules. The Central Government has framed the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950. The Act and the Rules between them provide not only for fixation of minimum wages but also for the work-load in relation to which the minimum wages are to be prescribed. They provide on the one hand for minimum wages, lay down the procedure for fixing or revising them and prescribe the rules in accordance with which the wages must be paid. On the other hand, the Act and the Rules fix the number of hours of work, payment of overtime and for hours of rest in the workday of the workman. The provisions of the Act and of the Rules are applicable to some employments only and they are shown in a Schedule appended to the Act. It is admitted that the present workmen come under the Schedule. The hours of work and the payment of overtime are, therefore, governed by the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 and the controversy in this case must be appreciated and resolved in accordance with them. We shall now turn to these provisions.;