KSRTC DEMOCRATIC LABOUR FEDERATION Vs. KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original petition is filed to quash Ext. P3 said to be contrary to the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, Ext. P3 is the duty schedule issued to the workmen of the first respondent. Their case is espoused by petitioners 1 and 2 union. The averment in the petition is that there was a conciliation settlement viz. P1 which was valid upto 1-2-1990 and that was modified by another conciliation settlement Ext. P2 on 28-12-1990. In sub clause 14 of Clause.37 of Ext. P2 it is stated that all existing provisions which are not modified by agreement will continue to operate as such. Therefore, even though the term of settlement evidenced by Ext. P1 expired on 1-2-1990 the same will remain in force by virtue of Ext. P2 agreement aforementioned. The contention of the petitioners is that Ext. P3 reschedule is in violation of the provisions of the two agreements and therefore, Ext. P3 is illegal. If that alone was there I would have dismissed the petition in limine. But it is stated that Ext. P3 is in flagrant violation of the Motor Transport Workers Act. S.13 of the Motor Transport Workers Act provides that no adult motor transport worker shall be required or allowed to work for more than eight hours in any day and forty eight hours in any week. In cases where motor worker is engaged in the running of any motor transport service, on long distance routes etc. more than eight hours in any day or forty eight hours in any week can be allowed but in no case for more than ten hours in a day and 54 hours in a week. S.37(1) of the Act says that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the commencement of the act. The proviso therein stipulates that if the motor transport worker is entitled to some benefits that cannot be denied and the worker shall continue to get the same. Counsel for the petitioner referred to me Ext. P3 schedule especially duty No. 2 and submitted that at a stretch a worker is made to work 11.30 hours in steering duty with a spread over time of 14.30 hours. It is seen that the duty hours starts at 2 P. M. and the day will end with 12 midnight and for the next day for another 10 hours the workman is made to work. In that way strictly S.13 of the Act has been complied with. That means he is made to work only 10 hours in a day and in no case more than 54 hours in a week. It is submitted that the workman is made to work below 40 hours in a week Hence there is a strict compliance with the law. S.13 restricts the hours of work per day to 10 hours but taking a day commencing from 2 P. M. and making him to work at a stretch for more than 13 or 14 hours will not be strictly in compliance with the spirit of the Act. Law may be an ass bat its administration is not asinine. In human wrongs will not be tolerated by judiciary conscious of human rights and Rule of law. Hence, I thought a deeper probe is called for. But it is seen even under the existing work schedule the workmen were working more than 10 hours and the violation was there even in the existing schedule covered by Exts. P1 and P2 settlements. None of the workmen appeared before this Court and only the union espousing their cause filed the petition. Added to that there is the fact that except the workmen in Ernakulam and Trivandrum area, all others have accepted the duty as per revised schedule. Therefore, when the petition came up for admission I issued notice to respondents to show cause why the petition should not be admitted. The existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act by itself would not prevent me from admitting the petition because if the statute is violated and when the policy of the enactment is clear I would be forsaking a great tradition, if I say I am helpless to entertain the writ petition because of the existence of alternate remedy. It is for the purpose of satisfying myself whether there is any substantial injury to the workmen concerned, I issued notice for admission. At the time of issuing notice I also directed counsel for the first respondent, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, to discuss the matter and settle, if possible, for in matters like this when public Interest is involved and not only the security of workmen but also safety of the pedestrian and the public are stated to be at peril I should be more duty conscious and act like a catalyst to bring about an amicable settlement.

(2.) A statement has been filed by the respondent in which it is stated that Ext. P3, which is sought to be challenged in this petition has been substantially modified. The Corporation on 12-6-1992 had given notice to the unions regarding the implementation of the revised duty schedule. The revised schedule of 42 duties was also served on the petitioners on 12-6-1992 which they have refused to accept. Ext. R1(b) is the revised schedule. It is stated in para 4 of the statement that the four representations produced by the petitioners as Exts. P9(a), P9(b), P10(a) and P10(b) have not been received by the respondents. Ext. P3 itself has not been implemented and they have implemented. Ext. R1(b) after making adequate modifications in consultation with the unions Therefore, Ext. P3 which was in challenge I has no legal validity. The statement says that Ext. P3 has been modified by Ext. R1(b) in consultation with the unions. What is important to notice is that more than 10 hours work is required only because of the double duty system. The double duty system was implemented, according to the statement, mainly on the request of the employees of the Corporation. It was after considering the conveniences of the employees and the convenience of the passengers, the double duty system was implemented in the service of the Corporation. It is explained that when a double duty is done by a worker, fee is entitled to get attendance for two days. Therefore, in a week if he does three double duties in three days he is entitled to get salary of seven days. The employees of the Corporation preferred to this facility. It is on account of that more than 10 hours of duty was provided in the revised schedule. The system was in vogue in the Corporation for the past several years. It is stated in para 6 that in all the existing schedules the double duty system was implemented and the employees were doing double duty without any objection upto 13-6-1992, The details of this has been given in the said paragraph. In nine duties, viz. duty Nos. 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 22, 25 and 27 there was no change before and after revision. Duty time is increased to only 25 minutes in duty Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 26. In duty No. 24 and 30 the running time in the revised schedule is less than in the existing schedule. In duty Nos. 2, 6 and 29 special allowance was given viz. Rs. 20/- for the first two duties and Rs. 10 for the third duty. Thus, the matter has been explained in Para.6 of the statement, though the veracity have been disputed by the petitioner. The statement further says that the Corporation has implemented the rescheduling in all the 64 units of the Corporation before June 1992 and only in Trivandrum Central and Ernakulam rescheduling has not been done and this original petition only relates to Ernakulam depot

(3.) THE Corporation submitted that it is necessary to make some change in the duty for the very existence of the Corporation. Comparative analysis of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation with other State Transport Undertakings are also given. The bus/staff ratio in Kerala is 11 while in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka it is 7.50 and 7 67 respectively. The staff cost per kilometre in Kerala is 402 and in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka it is only 185 and 186 respectively. Staff productivity per employee per day is 25 in Kerala whereas in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka it is 48 and 41 respectively. Steering hours is 5.50 in Kerala where in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka it is 8 and 8.15 respectively. Therefore, a case for increase in working hours has been made out by the Corporation for its very existence. It is emphasised that the double duty system, which is very much objected to, is adopted only for the convenience and benefit of the employees., It is specifically averred, if the employees do not want to implement the double duty system, the Corporation is readily agreeable to allot them work in single duty schedules strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act. The Corporation is prepared to give duty for 8 hours in a day, for six days, instead of the present three double duty in a week and 39 hours of work in a week, provided the willing worker shall give his option in writing. The petitioners are not willing to accept the said undertaking by the Managing Director in the meeting held on 18-6-1992. Since my apprehension that the workman is made to work like a bonded labour was found to be without any basis, I find no ground to entertain this writ petition.