PFIZER PRIVATE LIMITED BOMBAY Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two items of dispute between the appellant Pfizer Private Ltd., and the respondents, its employees, were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, by the Government of Maharashtra under Ss. 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on January 22, 1962. Both these items arose out of the proposed changes which the appellant wanted to make in the terms of employment governing the service of the respondents-. The appellant proposed to reduce the existing paid holidays to 8 instead of 27 to which respondents were entitled because so long, the appellant has been giving to its employees the benefit of public holidays as declared under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The appellant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,1913. It has its registered office at Bombay and it runs a factory in which it manufactures life saving drugs, such as antibiotics and antitubercular drugs, and vitamin products. The appellant's factory was working a multiplicity of shifts with different times. It, however, found that this working did not fully utilise the machinery installed in the factory. The utilisation of the raw product received by the appellant's factory in Bombay from its factory at Chandigarh was also not satisfactory and as a result of inadequate production, the appellant was not able to meet adequately the demand for its products from the market. That is why the appellant came to the conclusion that there was need to introduce three shifts in order to have extensive production of better quality products. The appellant felt that if it was able to produce its products on a much large scale, it would be able to undertake export of the said products, and in any event, larger production would enable the appellant to meet its competitors in the trade. Besides, the preparation of the well-known antitubercular drug 'Para Amino Salicylic Acid' (P.A.S.) which the appellant had developed in its research laboratory after carrying out laboratory and pilot plant experiments in 1960-61, needed the working of the relevant section on a three-shift basis because its production was a continuous process and as a result of the investigation made by its expert, the appellant came to the conclusion that the quality of the product would be very much improved if the section working in the production of the said drug was to work continuously. That was an additional reason why the appellant wanted to introduce 3 shifts in its factory. It thought that if the chemical and pharmaceutical departments were to work in three shifts' the other subsidiary sections would also have to work in three shifts in order to cope with the production. That, in brief, is the basis on which the appellant wanted to introduce three shifts in its factory; and so, it gave notice of change to the respondents, and after the conciliation efforts failed, it moved the Maharashtra Government to refer these disputes to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication.

(3.) The demand for three shifts was stoutly resisted by the respondents. They urged that for several years past, in the appellant's factory the respondents have received the benefit of 5-days week and that has now become a term of their employment: the introduction of three shifts would inevitably convert the 5- days week into a 6-days week; and that would he a retrograde step highly prejudicial to the interests of the employees. They conceded that in case the needs of the factory required, they would be willing to work on two Saturdays every month, provided they were paid proper over-time wages for that work; but they disputed the appellant's claim that there was a case for introducing such a drastic change as three shifts. Besides, the respondents contended that the inevitable consequence of the three shifts would be addition to the work-load of the respondents, and according to them, the proposal made by the appellant in that behalf was a complete departure from the pattern prevailing in the pharmaceutical industry in the region. The respondents also disputed the appellant's claim that the production of P.A.S. was a continuous process. They were, however, prepared to agree that all the manufacturing departments should be run on a two shift basis, avoiding the third shift altogether with suitable adjustments in time.