Increase Of Working Hours Without Compensation In Government Mints, Calcutta High Court Finds Tribunal Award Reasonable

Background

The management of India Government Mint issued a notice proposing to change the weekly working hours from 37½ to 44 hours,as per the 4th Pay Commission. This notice wasn't accepted by any of the three mint units (Calcutta, Hyderabad, and Mumbai), and the workers formed a Joint Action Committee to resist the change and protest.

Later, the 5th Pay Commission specifically recommended that the 44-hour work week should be “strictly enforced” in these three mints. The Commission noted that maintaining the status quo regarding shorter working hours only in these three mints would be “discriminatory and contrary to the basic principle of 'equal pay for equal work'”. Importantly, the Commission stipulated all recommended improvements in pay scales and benefits would only apply if the working hours were increased to 44 hours.

Following a direction from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta, the issue of providing 19% compensation for the difference between 37½ hours and 44 hours per week was forwarded to the Ministry. The Finance Secretary denied any compensation for the increased working hours, and instead proposed a pay-cut for when the mints didn't work for 44 hours per week.

The matter was then referred to various Regional Labour Commissioners. However, all conciliation attempts were unsuccessful. Eventually, in 2005, the Central Government constituted a National Tribunal and referred the dispute to it. The reference question was whether 19% compensation ought to be granted for the increased working hours. However, the Tribunal ruled that the workers are not entitled to any relief, as the decision to increase working hours is legal and justified. Aggrieved, the workers filed a writ petition challenging this award.

Arguments

The union argued that 19% compensation for the increased working hours is warranted. However, the management maintained that no additional compensation was justified since enhanced pay and benefits under the 5th Pay Commission already accounted for the increased working hours.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, citing Union of India (UOI) vs Calcutta Mint Employees Union (M.A.T. No. 2199 of 2004), the court held that such disputes should be addressed through appropriate industrial/labor legislation forums rather than through writ jurisdiction.

Secondly, the court referred to Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors. vs G.S. Uppal & Ors. (2008 INSC 498), which held that pay fixation in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review in this regard is very limited. The Court clarified that they should only interfere with such administrative decisions only when they are “unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.”

Thirdly, the court examined standard working hours in India, and noted that under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Shops and Establishment Acts, the standard is “not more than 9 hours per day or 48 hours per week”. Thus, it held that the increased 44-hour work week at the mints was well below the maximum allowed by law.

Fourthly, the court observed that the extension of working hours to 44 hours was not unreasonable, unjust or prejudicial. However, it explained that pay, perks and allowances also have to be adjusted/enhanced to compensate for the increased working hours.

Thus, the court dismissed the writ petition. Finding that the National Industrial Tribunal's award was in accordance with law, the court held that no judicial interference was warranted.

Decided on: 20.03.2025

Case No.: WPA 4724 of 2022 | Calcutta Mint Workers Union & Ors. v. National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Ors.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali, Mr. Puranjan Pal

Counsel for the Respondent/Union of India: Ms. Sabita Roy

Counsel for the Respondent No. 16: Ms. Sreetama Biswas

Click Here To Read/Download The Order