DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH

SUBJECT

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

PROJECT TITLE

THE MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT, 1961

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Prof. R.BHARAT KUMAR

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

SAHAL SHAJAHAN

ROLL NUMBER

18LLB131

SEMESTER –VI

DIVISION-B

1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: 
 
I am highly indebted to my Hon’ble faculty of Interpretation of Statutes Prof.R.Bharat Kumar sir,
for giving me a wonderful opportunity to work on the topic: “Motor Transport Workers
Act,1961”, and it is because of his excellent knowledge, experience and guidance, this project is
made with great interest and effort. I would also take this as an opportunity to thank my parents
for their support at all times. I have no words to express my gratitude to each and every person
who has guided and suggested me while conducting my research work. 

2|Page
TABLE OF CONTENT

1) INTRODUCTION
2) MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT, 1961

3) CASE LAWS

4) CONCLUSION

3|Page
INTRODUCTION

The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 came into existence in March, 1962. This act was
legislated exclusively for regulating the varied employment conditions. Before this, no other act
exists which dealt with motor transport workers wholly however, there were certain enactments
such as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Factories Act, 1948 which covered certain welfare
provisions and employment conditions of the motor transport workers. Therefore, this triggered
the Parliament for the special enactment in 1961.

The objective of the Act however apparently replicates the reason behind the enactment. The act
has been enforced to bestow special rights to the motor transport workers for their welfare and to
provide them with amicable working conditions. In order to make this act in consonance with
other enactments, two of them has been amended namely the Central Labor Laws (Extension to
Jammu and Kashmir) Act, 1970 and the Delegated Legislative Provisions (Amendment) Act,
1985.

The act has been divided into nine chapters. The first chapter is the Preliminary which constitutes
the title and the definitions part. The act applies to all the states of India including Jammu and
Kashmir. It has also been mentioned that the act would apply only to those motor transport
undertaking who would employ minimum five workers. The motor transport undertaking means
that that service which carries passengers, that is, the general public from one place to another
through a transport carrier for certain reward. The worker, therefore, is that person who works in
the undertaking and is hired either directly or through an agency. The worker could play
multifarious roles such as a driver, conductor, cleaner, watchman, time keeper and any of those
roles which are in a professional capacity and is related to the motor transport undertaking.
However, those workers who comes under the definition of worker given in the Factories Act,
1948 or any other related acts would not be considered a worker under The Motor Transport
Workers Act, 1961.

- provides that the motor transport undertaking should be registered under this act. The
registration form has to be given by the employer, who would be final binding authority
of the undertaking, to the authority prescribed by the rules under section 40 of the act.

4|Page
 Chapter III provides that the state government would appoint a chief inspector for the
state and inspectors subordinate to him as much is needed. Also qualified medical
practitioners would be appointed who would be referred to as certifying surgeons under
this act. The surgeon would have to conduct health checkups of the workers employed in
the undertaking.
- deals with the provisions related to welfare and safety of the workers.  A canteen would
be situated wherein the responsibility of the employer is to accommodate the workers
employed under him. The type of furniture, food, and environment would all be
responsibility of the employer. Also where the workers has to halt at night, in such a case,
a proper rest room has to provided to them along with the medical facilities and first aid
facilities. All the workers would be given a uniform and such other basic amenities such
as raincoat for their convenience by the employer. Therefore, the employer has to fulfill
the responsibilities provided by the state government. The next chapter gives the number
of hours which every worker has to work along with the rest interval. The adults has to
work for eight hours in a day in which the worker should not do it at a stretch but should
have an interval of half an hour after every five hours.  Also a weekly rest would be
allotted to every worker in the seven days schedule.

As per clause (a) of section 2, adolescents are defined to be those whose age lies between
fifteenth to eighteenth years but exclusive of eighteenth year. Therefore, section 23 clarifies that
a certifying surgeon would issue a certificate of fitness for each adolescents subsequent to which
they could work in the motor transport undertaking. Section 14 provides that adolescents has to
work for six hours including half an hour rest and they are not required to work in the night
shifts, that is, from 10PM to 6AM.  However, the act apparently mentions in section 21 of the act
that the children are not allowed to work in the undertaking. The child, as per the act, means
those who have not completed their fifteenth year. Therefore, the act prohibits the child labor.

5|Page
 MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT, 1961

An Act to provide for the welfare of motor transport workers and to regulate the conditions of
their work BE it enacted by Parliament in the Twelfth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-
APPLICATION of the Act:-
(1) It extends lo the whole of India.
(2) It applies to every motor transport undertaking employing five or more motor transport
workers: Provided that the State Government may, after giving not less than two months' notice
of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply all or any of the provisions
of this Act to any motor transport undertaking employing less than five motor transport workers.

(a) "adolescent" means a person who has completed his fifteenth year but has not completed his
eighteenth year:

(b) "adult" means a person who has completed his eighteenth year;

(c) ''child" means a person who has not completed his fifteenth year;

(d) "day" means a period of twenty-four hours beginning at midnight: Provided that where a
motor transport worker's duty commences before midnight but extends beyond midnight, the
following day for him shall be deemed to be the period of twenty-four hours beginning when
such duty ends, and the hours he has worked after midnight shall be counted in the previous day:

(e) "employer" means, in relation to any motor transport undertaking, the person who, or the
authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the motor transport undertaking, and
where the said affairs are entrusted to any other person whether called a manager, managing
director, managing agent or by any other name such other person;

(f) "hours of work" means the time during which a motor transport worker is at the disposal of
the employer or of any other person entitled to claim his services and includes-
(i) the time spent in work done during the running time of the transport vehicle:

6|Page
(ii) the time spent in subsidiary work: and
(iii) periods of mere attendance at terminals of less than fifteen minutes.

(g) "motor transport undertaking" means a motor transport undertaking engaged in carrying
passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward, and includes a private carrier:

(h) "motor transport worker" means a person who is employed in a motor

transport undertaking directly or through an agency, whether for wages or not, to work in a
professional capacity on a transport vehicle or to attend to duties in connection with the arrival,
departure, loading or unloading of such transport vehicle and includes a driver, conductor,
cleaner, station staff, line checking staff, booking clerk, cash clerk, depot clerk, timekeeper,
watchman or attendant, but except in section 8-does not include-
(i) any such person who is employed in a factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of
1948)-;
(ii) any such person to whom the provisions of any law for the time being in
force regulating the conditions of service of persons employed in shops or commercial
establishments apply;
(i) "qualified medical practitioner" means a person having a certificate granted by an authority
specified in the Schedule to the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 (7 of 1916)-, or notified under
section 3-of that Act or specified in the Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102
of 1956)-, and includes any person having a certificate granted under any Provincial or State
Medical Council Act:
(k) "spread-over" means the period between the commencement of duty on any day and the
termination of duty on that day;

REGISTRATION OF MOTOR TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING

(1) Every employer of a motor transport undertaking to which this Act applies shall have the
undertaking registered under this Act.
(2) An application for the registration of a motor transport undertaking shall be made by the
employer to the prescribed authority in such form and within such time as may be prescribed.

7|Page
(3) Where a motor transport undertaking is registered under this Act, there shall be issued to the
employer a certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed.

CERTIFYING SURGEONS
(1) The State Government may appoint qualified medical practitioners to be certifying surgeons
for the purposes of this Act within such local limits or for such motor transport undertakings or
class of motor transport undertakings as it may assign to them respectively.
(2) The certifying surgeon shall perform such duties as may be prescribed in connection with-
(a) the examination and certification of motor transport workers;
(b) the exercise of such medical supervision as may be prescribed where adolescents are, or are
to be, employed as motor transport workers in any work in any motor transport undertaking
which is likely to cause injury to their health.

CANTEENS
(1) The State Government may make rules requiring that in every place wherein one hundred
motor transport workers or more employed in a motor transport undertaking ordinarily call on
duty during every day, one or more canteens shall be provided and maintained by the employer
for the use of the motor transport workers.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for-
(a) the date by which the canteens shall be provided;
(b) the number of canteens that shall be provided and the standards in respect of construction,
accommodation, furniture and other equipment of the canteens;
(c) the foodstuffs which may be served therein and the charges which may be made therefor;
(d) the constitution of a managing committee for a canteen and the representation of the motor
transport workers in the management of the canteen.
(3) The State Government may subject to such conditions as it may impose, delegate to the chief
inspector the power to make rules with reference to clause (c) of sub-section (2).

REST ROOMS
(1) In every place wherein motor transport workers employed in a motor transport undertaking
are required to halt at night, there shall be provided and maintained by the employer for the use

8|Page
of those motor transport workers such number of rest rooms or such other suitable alternative
accommodation, as may be prescribed.
(2) The rest rooms or the alternative accommodation to be provided under sub-section (1) shall
be sufficiently lighted and ventilated and shall be maintained in a clean and comfortable
condition.
(3) The State Government may prescribe the standards in respect of construction,
accommodation, furniture and other equipment of rest rooms or the alternative accommodation
to be provided under this section.

UNIFORMS
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules requiring an
employer of a motor transport undertaking to provide for the drivers, conductors and line
checking staff employed in that undertaking such number and type of uniforms, raincoats or
other like amenities for their protection from rain or cold as may be specified in the rules.
(2) There shall be paid to the drivers, conductors and line checking staff by the employer an
allowance for washing of uniforms provided under sub-section (1) at such rates as may be
prescribed: Provided that no such allowance shall be payable by an employer who has made at
his own cost adequate arrangements for the washing of uniforms.

MEDICAL FACILITIES
There shall be provided and maintained by the employer so as to be readily available such
medical facilities for the motor transport workers at such operating centres and halting stations as
may be prescribed by the State Government.

FIRST-AID FACILITIES
(1) There shall be provided and maintained by the employer so as to be readily accessible during
all working hours a first-aid box equipped with the prescribed contents in every transport
vehicle.
(2) Nothing except the prescribed contents shall be kept in a first-aid box.
(3) The first-aid box shall be kept in the charge of the driver or the conductor of the transport
vehicle who shall be provided facilities for training in the use thereof.

9|Page
HOURS OF WORK FOR ADULT MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS
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: Provided that where any such motor transport
worker is engaged in the running of any motor transport service on such long distance routes, or
on such festive and other occasions as may be notified in the prescribed manner by the
prescribed authority, the employer may, with the approval of such authority, require or allow
such motor transport worker to work for more than eight hours in any day or forty-eight hours in
any week but in no case for more than ten hours in a day and fifty-four hours in a week, as the
case may be : Provided further that in the case of a breakdown or dislocation of a motor transport
service or interruption of traffic or act of God, the employer may, subject to such conditions and
limitations as may be prescribed, require or allow any such motor transport worker to work for
more than eight hours in any day or more than forty-eight hours in any week.

HOURS OF WORK FOR ADOLESCENTS EMPLOYED AS MOTOR TRANSPORT

WORKERS
No adolescent shall be employed or required to work as a motor transport worker in any motor
transport undertaking-
(a) for more than six hours a day including rest interval of half-an-hour;
(b) between the hours of 10 P.M. and 6 A.M.

DAILY INTERVALS FOR REST

(1) The hours of work in relation to adult motor transport workers on each day shall be so fixed
that no period of work shall exceed five hours and that no such motor transport worker shall
work for more than five hours before he has had an interval for rest for at least half-an-hour:
Provided that the provisions of this sub-section in so far as they relate to interval for rest shall not
apply to a motor transport worker who is not required to work for more than six hours on that
day.
(2) The hours of work on each day shall be so fixed that a motor transport worker is, except in
any case referred to in the second proviso to section 13-, allowed a period of rest of at least nine

10 | P a g e
consecutive hours between the termination of duty on any one day and the commencement of
duty on the next following day.

SPREAD-OVER
(1) The hours of work of an adult motor transport worker shall, except in any case referred to in
the second proviso to section 13-, be so arranged that inclusive of interval for rest under section
15-, they shall not spread-over more than twelve hours in any day.
(2) The hours of work of an adolescent motor transport worker shall be so arranged that inclusive
of interval forest under section 14-, they shall not spread-over more than nine hours in any day.

SPLIT DUTY
-Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the hours of work of a motor transport
worker shall not be split into more than two spells on any day.

NOTICE OF HOURS OF WORK

(1) There shall be displayed and correctly maintained by every employer a notice of hours of
work in such form and manner as may be prescribed showing clearly for every day the hours
during which motor transport workers may be required to work.
(2) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, no such motor transport worker shall be
required or allowed to work otherwise than in accordance with the notice of hours of work so
displayed.

WEEKLY REST
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules providing for
a day of rest in every period of seven days, which shall be allowed to all motor transport
workers.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), an employer may, in order to prevent
any dislocation of a motor transport service, require a motor transport worker to work on any day
of rest which is not a holiday so, however, that the motor transport worker does not work for
more than ten days consecutively without a holiday for a whole day intervening.

11 | P a g e
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any motor transport worker whose total
period of employment including any day spent on leave is less than six days.

COMPENSATORY DAY OF REST

-Where, as a result of any exemption granted to an employer under the provisions of this Act
from the operation of section 19-, a motor transport worker is deprived of any of the days of rest
to which he is entitled under that section, the motor transport worker shall be allowed within the
month in which the days of rest are due to him or within two months immediately following that
month, compensatory days of rest of equal number to the days of rest so lost.

PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN

-No child shall be required or allowed to work in any capacity in any motor transport
undertaking.

ADOLESCENTS EMPLOYED AS MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS TO CARRY TOKENS

-No adolescent shall be required or allowed to work as a motor transport worker in any motor
transport undertaking unless-
(a) a certificate of fitness granted with reference to him under section 23-is in the custody of the
employer; and
(b) such adolescent carries with him while he is at work a token giving a reference to such
certificate.

CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS
(1) A certifying surgeon shall, on the application of any adolescent or his parent or guardian
accompanied by a document signed by the employer or any other person on his behalf that such
person will be employed as a motor transport worker in a motor transport undertaking if certified
to be fit for that work, or on the application of the employer or any other person on his behalf
with reference to any adolescent intending to work, examine such person and ascertain his fitness
for work as a motor transport worker.
(2) A certificate of fitness granted under this section shall be valid for a period of twelve months
from the date thereof but may be renewed.

12 | P a g e
(3) Any fee payable for a certificate under this section shall be paid by the employer and shall
not be recoverable from the adolescent, his parent or guardian.

POWER TO REQUIRE MEDICAL EXAMINATION

-Where an inspector is of opinion that a motor transport worker working in any motor transport
undertaking without a certificate of fitness is an adolescent, the inspector may serve on the
employer a notice requiring that such adolescent motor transport worker shall be examined by a
certifying surgeon and such adolescent motor transport worker shall not, if the inspector so
directs, be employed or permitted to work in any motor transport undertaking until he has been
so examined and has been granted a certificate of fitness under section 23-

EXTRA WAGES FOR OVERTIME

( 1) Where an adult motor transport worker works for more than eight hours in any day in any
case referred to in the first proviso to section 13-or where he is required to work on any day of
rest under sub-section (2) of section 19-, he shall be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his
ordinary rate of wages in respect of the overtime work or the work done on the day of rest, as the
case may be.
(2) Where an adult motor transport worker works for more than eight hours in any day in any
case referred to in the second proviso tosection 13-, he shall be entitled to wages in respect of the
overtime work at such rates as may be prescribed.
(3) Where an adolescent motor transport worker is required to work on any day of rest under
sub-section (2) of section 19-, he shall be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate
of wages in respect of the work done on the day of rest.
(4) For the purposes of this section, "ordinary rate of wages" in relation to a motor transport
worker means his basic wages plus dearness allowance.

ANNUAL LEAVE WITH WAGES

(1) Without prejudice to such holidays as may be prescribed, every motor transport worker who
has worked for a period of two hundred and forty days or more in a motor transport undertaking
during a calendar year shall be allowed during the subsequent calendar year leave with wages for
a number of days calculated at the rate of--

13 | P a g e
(a) if an adult, one day for every twenty days of work performed by him during the previous
calendar year; and
(b) if an adolescent, one day for every fifteen days of work performed by him during the
previous calendar year.
(2) A motor transport worker whose service commences otherwise than on the First day of
January shall be entitled to leave with wages at the rate laid down in clause (a) or, as the case
may be, clause (b) of sub-section ( 1 ) if he has worked for two-thirds of the total number of days
in the remainder of the calendar year.
(3) If a motor transport worker is discharged or dismissed from service during the course of the
year, he shall be entitled to leave with wages at the rate laid down in sub-section (1), even if he
has not worked for the entire period specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) entitling him
to earned leave.
(4) In calculating leave under this section, fraction of leave of half a day or more shall be treated
as one full day's leave, and fraction of less than half a day shall be omitted.
(5) If a motor transport worker does not in any one calendar year take the whole of the leave
allowed to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, any leave not taken
by him shall be added to the leave to be allowed to him in the succeeding calendar year:
Provided that the total number of days of leave that may be carried forward to a succeeding year
shall not exceed thirty in the case of an adult or forty in the case of an adolescent.
(6) In this section "calendar year" means the year commencing on the first day of January.

WAGES DURING LEAVE PERIOD

(1) For the leave allowed to a motor transport worker under section 27-, he shall be paid at the
rate equal to the daily average of his total full time wages for the days on which he worked
during the month immediately preceding his leave, exclusive of any overtime earnings and
bonus, if any, but inclusive of dearncss allowance and the cash equivalent of the advantage, if
any, accruing by the concessional supply by the employer of foodgrains for the day on which he
worked.
(2) A motor transport worker who has been allowed leave for not less than four days under
section 27-shall, on an application made by him in this behalf to the employer, be paid in
advance, before his leave begins, an approximate amount equivalent to the wages payable to him

14 | P a g e
for the period of his leave and any amount so paid shall be adjusted against the wages due to him
for the aforesaid period of leave.
(3) If a motor transport worker is not granted leave to which he is entitled under sub- section (3)
of section 27-, he shall be paid wages in lieu thereof at the rates specified in sub- section (1).

CASE LAWS

1) Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Orang Bahadur

Facts:

This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) challenging the jurisdiction of
the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, to entertain an application under Section 26
(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (Bihar Act 8 of 1954) by opposite party No.
1 against the order of the Divisional Manager of the Corporation dated 173-1964 discharging
him from service. Opposite party No. 1 had been working under the Corporation as a conductor
and was discharged by the Divisional Manager for an alleged act of misconduct. When he
challenged the order of discharge before the Labour Court under Section 26(2) of Bihar Act 8 of
1954, the petitioner raised a preliminary objection on the ground that Bihar Act 8 of 1954 was
not applicable to the workmen of the Corporation who were governed by the provisions of the
Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (No. 27 of 1961). This objection was overruled by the
Labour Court.(2) Bihar Act 8 of 1954 came into force with effect from 17th March, 1954 and as
indicated in its preamble it was intended "to provide for the regulation of conditions of work and
employment in shops and others establishments and for certain other purposes" The expression
"establishment" was defined in Clause (6) of Section 2 of that Act, and similarly "shop" was also
defined in Clause (16) of that Section Chapter II dealt with establishments and contained detailed
provisions for the opening and closing hours prescribing the daily and weekly hours of work
intervals for rest, weekly holidays and other allied matters. Chapter III regulated the employment
of children and young persons in such establishments Chapter IV dealt with leave with wages
Chapter V contained provisions regarding payment of wages fixation of wage period, extra pav

15 | P a g e
for over-time, time of payment of wages and deductions from wages (Sections 19 to 25). Section
26(1) took away the contractual power of an employer to dismiss his employee at his will and
required that no employee who has been in employment for more than six months shall be
discharged or dismissed except for a reasonable cause and after giving notice. Sub-section (2) of
that section conferred power on an employee aggrieved by an order of discharge to move the
prescribed authority (here the Labour Court) against the order of discharge. The other sub-
section of that section dealt with the procedure to be followed by the prescribed authority in
hearing the petition from the discharged employee and passing orders on the same. Section 28
conferred power on an employee whose wages have been either unduly delayed or
unauthorisedly withheld and who is entitled to any sum from his employer to move the
prescribed authority for redress of his grievances, and the remaining sub-sections of that section
contained provisions for the mode of disposal of such petition by the prescribed authority who
could grant relief to the aggrieved employee on specified grounds. Chapter VI dealt with
inspection and penalties, and Chapter VII contained miscellaneous provisions including rule
making power. It will thus be seen that Bihar Act 8 of 1954 was mainly intended to protect
employees of shops and establishments who prior to the passing of the Act were practically at the
mercy of their employers. Summary powers for redress of their grievances, specially against
arbitrary discharge or arbitrary deduction from their wages, were provided in Sections 26 and 28.
With a view to remove any ambiguity, it was stated in Section 39 of that Act that the provisions
of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, would apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of
establishments under the Act, and similarly Section 39-A applied the provisions of the Bihar
Maternity Benefit Act, 1947 Mutatis mutandis to those employees.."

Issue:

(1) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) challenging the jurisdiction of
the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, to entertain an application under Section 26
(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (Bihar Act 8 of 1954) by opposite party No.
1 against the order of the Divisional Manager of the Corporation dated 173-1964 discharging
him from service. Opposite party No. 1 had been working under the Corporation as a conductor
and was discharged by the Divisional Manager for an alleged act of misconduct. When he

16 | P a g e
challenged the order of discharge before the Labour Court under Section 26(2) of Bihar Act 8 of
1954, the petitioner raised a preliminary objection on the ground that Bihar Act 8 of 1954 was
not applicable to the workmen of the Corporation who were governed by the provisions of the
Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (No. 27 of 1961). This objection was overruled by the
Labour Court.

Reasoning

It is true that there is no provision in the Motor Transport Workers Act for granting summary
relief to transport workers who may be aggrieved in the manner indicated above. But it should be
remembered that the Corporation itself is a statutory body working under the provisions of the
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It is ordinarily expected not to act capriciously in its
dealings with its employees and in fact Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of that Act
casts on the Corporation a duty "to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service
including fair wages, establishment of provident fund, living accommodation, places for rest and
recreation and other amenities". The State Government also is conferred power under Section
34(1) to issue directions to the Corporation as regards conditions of service of its employees,
wages to be paid to them and other allied matters. The Corporation also is conferred power by
Section 45 to make regulations and Clause fc) of Sub-section (2) of that section says that the
regulations may deal with the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of
officers and servants of the Corporation. Though there may be some doubt as to whether
discharge or removal from service is "a condition of service" it will undoubtedly come within the
scope of the expression "conditions of appointment." Thus, there are adequate provisions in the
Act constituting the Corporation to prevent arbitrary dismissal or removal from service of its
employees and hence resort to Section 26(2) of Bihar Act VIII of 1954 is not always necessary.
Then again, if wages are unreasonably withheld, the motor transport workers also may take
advantage of the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act so far as they may be applicable.
Resort to section 28 of Bihar Act VIII of 1954 is also not necessary for the purpose. Hence if the
Parliament in its wisdom did not think it necessary to make express provision in the Motor
Transport Workers Act. 1961, for summary relief in the manner given to other employees under
Section 26(2) and Section 28 of Bihar Act VIII of 1954, it cannot be said as a matter of
construction that those two sections would continue to apply to motor transport workers also

17 | P a g e
even though the other provisions of the Bihar Act must be held to have been impliedly repealed
by the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. It seems fairly clear that by passing the Road
Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and giving
authority to make rules and regulations dealing with the appointment and conditions of service of
the servants of the Corporation, the Parliament intended that this group of workers should be
dealt with on a separate footing and that a complete and self-contained law dealing with the
appointment and conditions of service should be provided. To that extent a general law like the
Shops and Establishments Act must be held to be impliedly.

Judgement

For these reasons, this petition is allowed and the proceedings before the Labour Court
Muzaffarpur, in case No. 4 of 1964 are quashed on the ground that the Labour Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the petition of opposite party No. 1 under Section 26(2) of Bihar Act
VIII of 1954. There will be no order for costs.

2) The Management of Christian, Medical College, Vellore v. Government of Tamil nadu

Facts

The appellant is a Medical College, situate at Vellore. It is a minority Educational Institution as

contemplated under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The appellant apart from running a
Medical College is also running a Nursing College and Research Institution. A full fledged
Hospital is also attached to the Medical College. The Medical College as well as the Nursing
College run by the appellant are affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University. In
order to cater to the needs of the students and staff comprising of Doctors, nurses, paramedical
and other skilled and unskilled employees, the appellant Institution owns certain transport
vehicles, viz. Buses and Ambulances, which are used for the purpose of transporting the
students, Doctors and employees of the Institution from the Hostels, residential quarters to the
College and back, it also employs skilled and unskilled workers to operate the said transport
vehicles. While so, during the year 1968, the Assistant Inspector of Labour, issued a show cause
notice for noncompliance of the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, to which
reply was sent by the appellant on 25.09.1968, contending that the said Act would not apply to
the appellant Institution. The said claim of the appellant was rejected by the Assistant Inspector

18 | P a g e
of Labour, Vellore vide its letter dated 26.09.1968. Subsequently by its letter dated 03.10.1969,
the appellant reiterated its contention that since it is an Educational Institution, it cannot be
termed as a Motor Transport Undertaking, within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Motor
Transport Workers Act, 1961. The Chief Inspector of Motor Transport, vide his letter order dated
10.11.1969, rejected the said claim of the appellant. Subsequently the Assistant Inspector of
Labour vide letter dated 28.01.1973 required to the appellant to comply with the provisions of
the Act.5. It is also claimed that the appellant vide its letters dated 27.02.1973 and 05.03.1973
sought for exemption from the provisions of the Act. The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Vellore,
by his letter dated 06.11.1973, once again insisted that the appellant should comply with the
provisions of the Act. The Commissioner of Labour, Madras vide his letters dated 01.11.1974
and 04.12.1974 directed the appellant to renew the registration and then approach for exemption.
In the interregnum, the 2nd respondent viz. The Deputy Inspector of Labour, Vellore, filed a
complaint, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vellore, for the alleged contravention of the
certain provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. The complaint came to be
dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vellore, dated 22.06.1978, upon the finding that
the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant by its letter dated
02.11.1978, addressed to the Commissioner of Labour, Madras, sought for orders confirming
that the appellant Institution is not a Motor Transport Undertaking within the meaning of Section
2(g) of Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. The 2nd respondent appears to have issued another
show cause notice on 02.11.1978, calling for an explanation from the petitioner/appellant for not
complying with the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. The appellant vide its
letter dated 28.11.1978 again reiterated its stand that it cannot be termed as a Motor Transport
Undertaking and as such the Act will not apply to it. The appellant again by its letter dated
07.12.1978 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras, requested him to pass
orders confirming that the appellant institution is not a Motor Transport Undertaking within the
meaning of the Act.7. However, the appellant, as per the directions of the Authorities, sought for
renewal of its license for the years 1978 and 1979 without prejudice to its contention that it is not
covered under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. It is further claimed that the Inspector of
Labour, Vellore again issued a show cause notice on 15.02.1979, as to why action should not be
taken against the appellant for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. The appellant sent
a reply on 01.05.1979 reiterating its earlier stand that it is not a Motor Transport Undertaking

19 | P a g e
within the meaning of the said Act and the workers, who are employed by it, cannot be termed as
Motor Transport Workers falling with in the purview of the Act. In the meanwhile, the
Commissioner of Labour, by his letter dated 06.05.1980 required the appellant to narrate the
circumstances under which the exemption is sought for or if not, to apply the Chief Inspector of
Motor Transport Undertaking, for removal of the appellant institution from the purview of the
Act.8. Accordingly, the appellant vide its letter dated 10.06.1980 requested the Inspector of
Labour, to remove the appellant from the purview of the Act and also stated that by a
misconception of the appellant institution was registered under the provisions of the Act. A reply
was sent by the first respondent on 23.01.1981 stating that the question of removal of the
appellant institution does not arise and by another letter dated 17.02.1981 advised the appellant
institution to renew its registration. In compliance with the said letter dated 17.02.1981, the
appellant by its letter dated 28.02.1981 submitted an application for renewal of registration under
protest and without prejudice to its contentions that it is not a Motor Transport Undertaking for
the years 1980 and 1981.9. The appellant appears to have again reiterated its stand that the Motor
Transport Workers Act did not apply to it. In the meanwhile, the Government of Tamil Nadu
passed certain orders exempting certain Educational Institution from the purview of the Act, at
the instance of the Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and nine other Educational
Institutions. The exemptions that were in force till the year 2003, were not renewed further.
Since the exemption granted was not renewed, the 2nd respondent issued another show cause
notice on 26.04.2004, to the appellant for its failure to comply with the provisions of the Act.
The 2nd respondent issued another show cause notice on 20.01.2005 claiming that the Act
applies to the appellant and that the appellant ought to have complied with the provisions by
submitting necessary forms and paying necessary fees. The appellant once again sent a detailed
reply on 04.04.2005, wherein, it reiterated its stand that the Motor Transport Workers Act would
not apply to the appellant institution and sought for exemption from the provisions of the Motor
Transport Workers Act. The said claim of the appellant was rejected by the 1st respondent vide
its letter dated 27.12.2005, wherein, the 1st respondent, after referring to the Government orders
issued on the subject, had concluded that since the Government had decided not to grant
exemption from the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, in respect of the
Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and nine other Educational Institutions the appellant
cannot be construed as institution falling outside the scope of the Motor Transport Workers Act,

20 | P a g e
1961.10. It is at this juncture, the appellant has come forward with the above Writ Petition
mainly contending that in order to apply the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act,
1961 to the appellant, the appellant should be a “Motor Transport Undertaking” as defined under
Section 2(g) of the said Act. Unless, it is shown that the appellant answered the said definition as
a Motor Transport Undertaking the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to the
appellant.."

Issues

The issue involved in this Writ Appeal is, as to whether the appellant which is an Educational
Institution could be called a Motor Transport Undertaking , solely on the basis that it owned
certain Transport Vehicles, which are exclusively used for the purposes of transporting its own
employees and students from the Hostels, residential quarters to the Hospital, Colleges and vise
versa.

Reasoning

" It is not the case of the respondents that the vehicles used by the appellant are meant for
transport of goods for hire or reward. Therefore, these vehicles cannot be termed as private
carriers. Therefore, unless it is shown that the vehicles owned by the appellant are used for
carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward, the appellant cannot be termed
as a “Motor Transport Undertaking.

Judgement

"In view of the facts and reasoning, we are constrained to deny the relief of declaration sought
for by the appellant, though not for the same reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, the intra Court Appeal will stand dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the
case there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.”

3) Workmen of The Rajasthan Atomic Power Project v. Management of The Rajasthan

Atomic Power Project

Facts:

21 | P a g e
" The following dispute was referred under S.10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for
adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur :"Whether the action of the Management of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Post
Office Anushakti, via Kota in giving a notice of change, dated 20th March, 1973 under S.9A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in so far as payment of overtime allowance to staff car drivers
is concerned, is justified. If not, to what relief are they entitled?" The dispute arose in the
following manner. Prior to August 1, 1971 the motor vehicle drivers employed in the Rajasthan
Atomic Power Project, hereinafter called the Project, were being paid. " On December 12, 1972
the Management of the Project gave notice to the General Secretary of the union under S.19(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act conveying their intention to terminate the settlement, dated
November 17, 1971 is so far as the staff car drivers were concerned. On the expiry of two
months from the service of this notice, the Management served on the union a notice under S.9A
of the Industrial Disputes Act proposing to effect a change in the conditions of service of the
staff car drivers as indicated in the notice under S. 19(2). The notice under S. 9A stated that with
effect from April 12, 1973 the staff car drivers would be entitled to overtime allowance as
admissible to them under the Staff Rules and not under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.
This gave rise to the dispute which, as earlier, was referred for adjudication to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur. Before the Tribunal it was
contended on behalf of the Management that they had entered into the settlement dated
November 17, 1971 under a mistaken belief that the staff car drivers were covered by the
provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 but they found later that the definition of
"motor transport worker" in S.2(h) of the Motor Transport "Workers" Act, 1961 did not include
the staff car drivers of the project. The Tribunal agreed that the staff car drivers were not motor
transport workers within the meaning of S. 2(h) and held that there was force in the contention of
the Management that they were wrongly included in the settlement and that the termination of
the settlement in so far as it was concerned the staff car drivers was, therefore, justified. The
Tribunal found that the staff car drivers were not entitled to any relief and made his award
accordingly. The workmen of the project represented by their union have preferred this appeal by
special leave challenging the validity of the award.."

Issues

22 | P a g e
"Whether the action of the Management of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Post Office
Anushakti, via Kota in giving a notice of change, dated 20th March, 1973 under S.9A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in so far as payment of overtime allowance to staff car drivers is
concerned, is justified. If not, to what relief are they entitled ?"

Reasoning

" It seems to us that the question whether the staff car drivers of the project were motor transport
workers as defined in the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 was not relevant to the issue
before the Tribunal. The workmen were not seeking to enforce their right to overtime allowance
under the Motor Transport Workers Act. The settlement dated November 17, 1971 resolved the
existing dispute as to the rate of overtime allowance payable to the motor vehicle drivers by
providing in one of the terms that they should be paid overtime in accordance with the provisions
of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. The agreement making the provisions as to overtime
in the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 applicable to the motor vehicle drivers employed in
the Project itself suggests that the parties were aware that the Act has its own force did not apply
to the motor vehicle drivers. If these motor vehicle drivers were governed by the provisions of
the Motor Transport Workers Act, then no question of applying that Act for a settlement between
the parties could possibly arise. It is not disputed that motor vehicle drivers include staff car
drivers. The right asserted by the staff car drivers arises on the settlement and does not flow out
of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, and it appears from the memorandum of settlement
that it was arrived at "after protracted discussion."

Judgement

In these circumstances we do not think that it could be said that the management of the Project
entered into the settlement on a mistaken belief. As the award proceeds on the managements case
of "mistaken belief" which we do not consider acceptable, we allow the appeal and set aside the
award. The appellants will be entitled to the costs of this appeal.

4) G. Suresh Babu v. The Asst. Superintendent of Police & Others

23 | P a g e
Facts

"The main case of the petitioner is that Alleppey Parcel Service is a motor transport undertaking
and, therefore, it is covered under the Motor Transport Workers Act. Hence, permanent
employees who are exclusively engaged for loading and unloading work are covered under the
above Act and, therefore, they need not be registered under the Kerala Head load Workers Act. It
is their further contention that three persons are employed by them for doing the loading and
unloading work and they applied for registration of the above three workers but identity card was
issued to only one worker. Applications for the other two workers were refused and appeals are
pending. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent Union and their workers are creating
obstruction to their work demanding headload work and therefore the petitioner wants police
protection from this court. An interim police protection was granted provided the loading and
unloading work is done only by the registered worker.

Admittedly, the petitioner’s establishment is situated in a covered area under the Head Load
Workers Act, 1978 and the Kerala Head load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare
Scheme 1983. It is also admitted that the petitioner’s establishment at Palakkad is not registered
under the Motor Transport Workers Act and the workers of the petitioner are not registered
under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Act, 1985. They are also not enrolled
as members of the Welfare Fund Scheme under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare
Fund Scheme, 1985. The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 is a Central Act and it is a Special
Act provided for the welfare of the motor transport workers and for regulating the conditions of
their work as can be seen from the preamble off the Act. The contention of the petitioner is that
being a Central Act provisions of that Act will prevail over the State Act and the petitioner’s
workers are covered under the Act. Non-registration of the petitioner’s establishment and the
workers under that Act only entail penal consequences but if that Act is applicable, the Kerala
Headload Workers Act can have no application in that establishment and its workers. On the
contrary, the 4th respondent Union as well as the Standing Counsel for the Headload Workers
Welfare Fund Board submitted that as far as the Headload Workers Act is concerned it is a
Special Act to regulate the employment of the headload workers in the State of Kerala. The
Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 will prevail over the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Act.

24 | P a g e
Both Acts are labour welfare legislation coming under entry 24 of List III of Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution and both the State and Central has got concurrent powers on the subject. Article
254 (1) of the Constitution of India provides that in case of repugnancy of any of the provisions
of the State Act enacted on matters in the concurrent list, provisions of the Central Ac would
prevail subjection clause (12) of Art. 254. The Kerala Headload Workers Act received the assent
of the President of India on 20-5-1981. Therefore, if there is conflict between the provisions, the
Kerala Act will prevail in view of Art. 254 (2). Art.254(2) reads as follows:(2) Where a law
made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by
Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the
Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and
has received his assent, prevail in the State:Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent
Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law
adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the legislature of the State”.6. In
this case, since Kerala Act is a subsequent Act received the assent of the President will prevail
over the Central Act. In this connection, we refer to the decision of the Apex Court in
Transmission Corporation of A.P. v. Ch. Prabhakar and others AIR 2004 SC 3368.7. Eventhough
both the Acts contain non-obstante clause, since the Kerala Act is a subsequent Act, while
framing the Kerala Act legislature was aware of the earlier Act and then made the above
provisions and hence the provisions of the later Act will prevail. Sec 37 of the Motor Transport
Workers Act provides as follows:“Effect of laws and agreements inconsistent with this Act (1)
The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law or in the terms of a any award, agreement or contract of service,
whether made before or after the commencement of this Act:Provided that where under any such
award, agreement, contract or service or otherwise a motor transport worker is entitled to
benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would
be entitled under this Act, the motor transport worker shall continue to be entitled the more
favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that he receives benefits in respect
of other matters under this Act.(2) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as precluding
any motor transport worker from entering into an agreement with an employer for granting him
rights or privileges in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him that those to which

25 | P a g e
he would be entitled under this Act”. No authority other than the Government, other Board or a
committee shall be entitled to make any Scheme or do any other act conferring, or purporting to
confer, any benefits on headload workers”

Issues

Petitioner is running a parcel service business. The activities of the petitioner’s are mentioned in
para 3 of the Writ Petition which is as follows:-

“The parcel service business is one where the goods collected by the petitioner, have to be
transported to various places as destined by consignors and consignees and vice versa. Apart
from the lorries belong to Alleppey Parcel Service, hired lorries of the Alleppey Parcel Services
and other goods vehicles are also coming to the petitioner’s establishment. So also the goods
already collected are transported through the same or various vehicles. The business parties are
bringing goods to the petitioner’s establishment vide various vehicles like box auto, tempo van,
hand carts and also lorries. All the goods coming to the premises of establishment, vide various
vehicles, are unloaded by the petitioner and his attached workers. So also the loading of goods
after releasing from the establishment.”

Reasoning

"The same view was expressed in Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. and
Another ((2004) 6 SCC 36). It was also held that law assented to by the President will prevail
over the Central Legislation on the same filed in view of Art.254(2) if there is repugnancy. It is a
well settled preposition that onus is on the petitioner to prove that provisions of the Central Act
and State Act contains repugnant provisions. He has to prove that the extent of repugnancy also.
He has to establish that a provision or part of the provisions are repugnant. Mere possibility is
not enough. Whether there is direct conflict between two statues, whether the two statues occupy
the same field and whether; legislature intents to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the
subject matter etc. also should be examined as held by the Apex Court in Bharat Hydro Power
corporation Ltd. and others v. State of Assam and Another – AIR 2004 SCW 2308. Here,
provisions of Central Act, namely, Motor Transport workers Act and Kerala Headload Workers

26 | P a g e
Act are not repugnant. If petitioner has permanent workers in the establishment he need register
them under the Headload Workers act as attached workers and there is no obligation to register
them under the Scheme.."

Judgement

"We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal in this writ petition. Appellate
Authority is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, according to law. But at
present, the petitioner can do the loading and unloading work with the help of the said
Manikandan, the registered worker, without the obstruction of the Union. In such case, the police
can afford protection to the petitioner. But, if any other workers are required for doing the
loading and unloading work, the petitioner is bound to employ only registered workers a
provided under the Head load Workers Act.."

5) Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.D. Gupta & Another

Facts

"Puran Singh, respondent No. 2 in L.P.A. No. 124 of 1977, Ram Swarup, respondent No. 2 in
L.P. A. No. 125 of 1977 and Chander Pal, respondent No. 2 in L.P.A. No. 127 of 1977 had filed
applications under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of
wages allegedly due to them but not paid by the appellant. Puran Singh in his application under
Section 33-C (2) stated that he joined the appellant as a conductor in 1965 and worked in that
capacity till October 22, 1975 when he was removed from service by way of punishment without
holding any enquiry. He further stated that he was placed under suspension pending enquiry on
January 20, 1974 by an order passed by the Assistant General Manager (T) Vigilance. He
remained under suspension upto January 20, 1975 when the suspension order was revoked. For
the period of suspension he was paid subsistence allowance though he was entitled to full wages.
Accordingly, he asked for the balance due by way of the wages to be computed and ordered to be
paid to him. He also claimed bonus for the year 1974-75, which according to him had not been
paid to him. Apart from this he claimed various increments to which he would have been entitled
but which were not paid.4. Ram Swarup stated in his application under Section 33-C (2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act that he was a conductor in the establishment of the appellant. He also
remained under suspension from December 5, 1973 to October 31, 1974 during which period he

27 | P a g e
was paid subsistence allowance and not full wages. The suspension order was passed by the
Assistant General Manager (T) Vigilence. In consequence he claimed the difference between the
subsistence allowance paid to him and full wages plus other benefits. Chander Pal joined the
appellant as a conductor in 1960. He was placed under suspension for four months in 1967-68,
for 8 months on two occasion in 1972 and for one year and 12 days from January 9, 1974 to
January 21,1975. He was paid subsistence allowance and not full wages He accordingly claimed
the difference of the two for the period during which he was under suspension. He also claimed
certain further amounts on the basis of alleged mis-calculations in salary. All the three workmen
had pleaded that the Assistant General Manager under whose orders they were placed under
suspension did not have the power to suspend in their applications filed in the Labour Court. The
appellant raised a jurisdictional objection to the maintainability of an applications under Section
33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It contended that inasmuch as the workmen
concerned were covered by the definition of the term “motor transport worker” as given in
Section 2(h) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, the remedy of the applicants, if any, was
to move an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and consequently the
application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable. It was
further pleaded that the applicants were rightly placed under suspension and later even removed
from service and were entitled to only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension,
which was admittedly paid to them. The objection to the power of the Assistant General Manager
to place the workmen concerned under suspension was repelled.8. The Labour Court came to the
conclusion that existence of an alternative remedy under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages
Act was no bar to the maintainability of an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Regarding suspension the Labour Court observed that the representative of the
appellant Mr. D.S. Sareen conceded that the Assistant General Manager had no power to suspend
and, therefore, the suspension being admittedly illegal the workmen concerned were entitled to
full wages and benefits for the period that they were placed under suspension.

Issue

"Whether there was or there was not valid suspension is a question which could not be decided
by the Labour Court in an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.."

Whether the workers were eligible for wage when being suspects or under doubt of guilt?

28 | P a g e
Reasoning

"All the three enactments fall within the ambit of what is commonly called, social legislation.
The rights, liabilities and procedures, Courts and Tribunals, envisaged by the enactments bring
about a departure in the conventional concept of relationship between master and servant. Not
only on account of the Constitutional scheme but also by way of development of a socialist
society social legislation requires and receives liberal interpretation. Judicial pronouncement, as
far as possible, have tried to reconcile varying provisions of different statutes to construe a
remedy or a right of the workmen. The appellants’s case is that even while giving a liberal inter-
pretation, there is no option but to put limitation on the enforcement of special rights, facilities or
advantages envisaged to benefit the workmen which is clearly postulated, and it is with this
approach that we should examine the contention that the remedy under Section 33-C(2) for the
Industrial Disputes Act could not be availed of by the respondents-work men and that their only
remedy, if at all, was to invoke the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act read with the
provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act.

The learned Judge has held that on passing of the Industrial Disputes Act two forums or remedies
are now available to a motor transport worker. According to him it would lead to “an extra-
ordinary result” which nobody contemplated if on the enactment of the Motor Transport Workers
Act in 1961, the right of motor transport worker to move an application under Section 33-C(2)
was held to be barred. He did not find that there was anything “hopelessly inconsistent” between
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Motor Transport Workers Act to persuade
him to hold that the latter has impliedly repealed Section 33-C (2) vis-a-vis motor transport
workers. Our learned brother disagreed with the view expressed in Mr. Bharti Velu Bus Service
v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur and Another, 1977 Labour and Industrial Cases
320 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) in applying the maxim “generalia special ibus non derrogant”
to hold that Section 25 of the Motor Transport Workers Act repealed Section 33-C (2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, as far as motor transport workers are concerned. The learned Judge took
the view that the above maxim must be understood to mean that a general law does not repeal a
special law but it could not be read to mean the opposite, namely, that a special law ordinarily
repeals a general law. He relied on the observations in Brooms Legal Maxims at page 348 and
also quoted Craies on Statute Law at page 377. It is not necessary to dilate or comment upon the

29 | P a g e
view expressed as in the present case the facts are entirely different, as will be apparent by
looking at the historical perspective of the three legislations with which we are concerned. The
Payment of Wages Act, which was the first to be passed covered wage-earners and could cover
industrial workers also including motor transport workers. It was a general law for the benefit of
wage earners. The second enactment, namely, the Industrial Disputes Act carved out a class from
the general class of wage-earners for the benefit of the workmen as defined in Section 2(s) of
that Act. The third enactment passed in 1961 carved out a further special class of workers
covered by Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, viz, the motor transport workers.
Therefore, though it is a clear case of a special law by which a class is carved out from the bigger
class and being latter in point of time could be regarded as the exclusive special enactment for
that class of persons, even so, remembering the rule of liberal interpretation qua special welfare
legislations, we would not be inclined to read repeal by the special law unless it is expressly so
provided or it has to be so read by implication to avoid inconsistency. We respectfully agree with
our brother Kapur, J. that one cannot read repeal lightly and, therefore, the argument about
general or special law may be more or less an academic question.

Judgement

The result of the above discussion is that the appeals are accepted. The judgments under appeal
are set aside. The rule in the writ petitions are made absolute.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases and the time that it has taken for the
controversy to be resolved, we decide only the question of law but give no direction as to re-
payment of the dues allegedly due to respondent No. 2 in the respective appeals which they may
have recovered in the meanwhile. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

6) Hotel Saravana Bhavan, rep. by its Partner, R. Saravanan v. The Deputy Labour
Inspector, VI Circle

Facts

"The petitioner is an Establishment engaged in the business of Hotels and Restaurants. It has
several branches within the City of Chennai and in various parts of Tamil Nadu and also in
abroad.(b) The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act,

30 | P a g e
1958 (Act 13 of 1958) to regulate the conditions of service of employees working in catering
establishments in the State of Tamil Nadu. Prior to the said enactment, the hotels and restaurants
were governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.
Consequent to the enactment of Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act, 1958, the provisions
of the Weekly Holidays Act, 1942, the Factories Act, 1948 and the Tamil Nadu Shops and
Establishments Act, 1948 were made inapplicable to the catering establishments as the 1958
enactment is a special enactment.(c) Under Section 3A of the Act, no space or premises on or
after the date of expiry of the period specified under Section 4(1) shall be used as catering
establishment without a registration certificate and except in accordance with the terms and
conditions mentioned therein. Employee is defined under section 2(4) as person wholly or
principally employed directly or through any agency either for wages or not in or in connection
with the business of any catering establishments, but does not include member of the Employers
family. It also prescribes the daily and weekly hours of work in catering establishments, wages
for overtime work, intervals for rest spread over holidays, wages during leave period, etc. Under
Section 19 of the Act, an employee if discharged or dismissed or retrenched is entitled to file
appeal before the appellate authority as may be prescribed.(d) Tamil Nadu Catering
Establishment Rules, 1959, was also issued which governs the terms and conditions of
employment of labourers in the catering establishments. Premises in which the petitioner runs
hotels and restaurants are registered under the said Act. Petitioner also maintains statutory
records, which are required to be maintained and also submits periodical returns as provided
under the Acts and Rules.(e) To carry on the hotels and restaurant business, petitioner is
maintaining 58 vehicles comprising lorries, vans, auto-rickshaws, etc, which are mainly used for
transporting raw materials and also food items from one restaurants to another. The Drivers and
Cleaners who are engaged in the operation of the vehicles are also covered under the Tamil Nadu
Catering Establishments Act, 1958.(f) On 18.8.2006, the respondent conducted inspection at the
Corporate Office at No.228 N.S.K.Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai-26, and sought for the records
pertaining to the usage of motor vehicles to examine the applicability of Motor Transport
Workers Act, 1961 to the petitioner establishment. According to the petitioner at that time it was
informed specifically that the establishment is covered under the Tamil Nadu Catering
Establishments Act, 1958 and various types of motor vehicles maintained/used are only
incidental to carry on the business of catering and therefore the business cannot be treated as

31 | P a g e
Motor Transport Undertaking to attract the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act,
1961.."

Reasoning

"It is to be noted that there is no direct conflict between any of the provisions of the two statutes.
The determinative test as noted above is whether the enactments are sharply conflicting or are
inconsistent and/or repugnant. In the instance case it is not so. The operation of the Act is not
restricted in its area of operation by what is provided in the Establishments Act and vice versa.
Absence of some provisions in another Act does not amount to conflicting provision or
inconsistent provision amounting to repugnancy of such provision.10. If both Acts are made
applicable, it will serve workmen the best as the benefits which are not made available to them in
the Central Act i.e. the Act are made available to them in the State Act i.e. the Establishments
Act and the benefits which are not made available to them in the State Act are made available in
the Central Act. By repeal of one, the benefits under the repealed Act stand withdrawn and such
benefits are not provided in the existing Act. The workmen by applying the logic of implied
repeal will be deprived of such benefits. Both the Acts are enacted for the benefit and well being
of workmen and it would be appalling to comprehend a situation that withdrawal of benefit by
enacting a statute was contemplated."

Judgement

On the basis of the above findings, the petitioner is definitely coming under the definition of
Motor Transport Undertaking as it owns 58 goods carriers used for its business/commercial
purposes and more than 120 workers are engaged in those vehicles, who are to be treated as
transport workers, and hence the petitioner is bound to register itself under Section 3 of the
Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, as directed by the respondent. The workers are entitled to
get service conditions and other benefits, which are more favourable as per the above Act,
though the workers are getting other benefits under the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act,
1958 as on today

This Court ordered interim stay of the impugned order when the writ petition was admitted and
the same is in force as on date. Hence the petitioner is granted four weeks time to register itself
as directed in the impugned order/notice, from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.

32 | P a g e
The writ petition is dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Connected miscellaneous
petition is also dismissed.

7) Amarnath Singh vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal

Facts

Harindra Dubey (Opposite Party No. 3) was employed as a driver by the petitioner, who owned a
small motor transport establishment at Chiraya Tanr in Patna. Opposite Party No. 2 is the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bihar, under Section 28(1) of the Bihar Shops
and Establishments Act, 1953 (8 of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954. Opposite
Party No. 1 is the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, appointed under Section 28 of the
same Act.

An application was filed by Harindra Dubey before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(opposite party No. 2) under Section 28 (1) of the Act of 3954, claim-ins payment of arrears of
wages against the petitioner, the amount being Rupees 1,610 plus a certain amount of
compensation. It was registered as B. S. E. Case No. 14 of 1966, The claim was allowed by the
Assistant Labour Commissioner by his order dated the 14th December, 1966, who directed the
petitioner to make payment of Rs. 2,636 to opposite party No. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal
against that order before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, who by its order dated the 16th of
February, 1968, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

Issue

Whether the petitioner was registered under the Motor Transport Workers Act?

Whether the case would come under The Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 or The
motor transport workers act, 1961?

Reasoning

33 | P a g e
These sections, in substance, relate to matters which are relevant only in connection with the
performance of his duties by a motor transport worker and not by others, likewise. Section 7 of
Chapter III relates to certifying surgeons for the purposes of the Act within such local limits or
for such motor transport undertakings or class of motor transport undertakings as it may assign to
them respectively, which is not provided for in the Act of 1954. Learned Counsel urged that
these specific provisions in the Act of 1961 show that motor transport workers are to be
governed by the provisions of that Act, and not by the general Act of 1954, and the decision of
the Division Bench, referred to above, AIR 1968 Pat 200, proceeding, as it does, on an elaborate
consideration of the Act of 1961, being a special Act as opposed to the Act of 1954, must be
accepted as a sound view, and it cannot be disturbed or modified. It may be stated that the
referring Judges, however, have expressed doubt about the correctness of that decision on foot
of Section 2(h) of the Act of 1961.

There is yet another consideration which is that, in Sub-clause (i) of Clause (h), the expression is
that it does not include 'any such person', referring to those workers who have been specifically
enumerated in Clause (h). The policy of the Legislature is also clear in the sense that, if motor
transport workers are engaged in working for a factory, their welfare is provided for in
the Factories Act, and, if they are working for a commercial establishment other than a motor
transport undertaking where it is maintained only for the purposes of running the establishment
this too must be governed by the special conditions of that commercial establishment which is
other than what is referred to in Clause (h), unless the establishment maintained by a factory,
shop and commercial establishment is engaged in business contemplated in Section 2 (g) of the
1961 Act. In this connection, learned Counsel has relied upon Maxwell on Interpretation of
Statutes (1962 edition) at pages 16, 27 and 32. At page 16, it is stated as follows:--

"It is an elementary rule that a thing which is within the letter of a statute will, generally, be
construed as not within the statute unless it be also within the real intention of the legislature, and
the words, if sufficiently flexible, must be con strued in the sense which, if less correct
grammatically, is more in harmony with that intention."

34 | P a g e
Judgment

In the result, therefore, I am satisfied that the judgment of this Court, referred to above, is
correct, though it must be stated that the attention of their Lordships was not drawn to the
ambiguity arising out of Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Motor Transport
Workers Act 1961.

The application, therefore, must be allowed and the award of the Tribunal set aside, and it must
be held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain this case, and the
provisions, of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, should have been resorted to by Opposite
Party No. 3 in order to get any relief to which he might be entitled in, relation to his claim
against the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.

8) Case Name: Andhra Pradesh State Trade Federation vs Commissioner Of Labour And
Anr.

Facts

The petitioner is the Andhra Pradesh State Trade Federation, Hyderabad and is a Society
registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act. Its members are said to be
traders and owners of three wheelers (Autos) and two wheeler vehicles used for distribution of
goods in retail in Andhra Pradesh. They state that they are employing one driver per each
vehicle. While so, in reply to the letter dated July 11, 1988 addressed to the Commissioner of
Labour, Hyderabad, the latter informed the Federation on July 26, 1988 that "according to the
definition of Motor Transport Undertaking contained in S. 2(g) of the Motor Transport Workers
Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Workers Act), a 'private operator' is also included in that
definition and hence the vehicles i.e., 'delivery vans/delivery autos employing workers are
covered by the Motor Transport Workers Act." The Federation was accordingly advised "to get
their undertakings (vehicles) registered (under S. 3) of the Act, with the concerned Labour
Officers immediately."

Questioning the validity of the said letter of the Commissioner of Labour dated July 26, 1988,
the Federation of the Traders has filed the present writ petition. It seeks the issue of a writ of

35 | P a g e
Mandamus directing the respondents not to insist upon the members of the petitioner-Federation
to register their establishment under the Workers Act, 1961 and to consequently direct the 2nd
respondent (the Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad) to renew the registration of the
members of the petitioner-Federation without insisting upon them to produce the registration
certificate under S. 3 of the Workers Act, 1961.

Issue

Whether traders having their own vehicles can be treated as employers of 'motor transport
undertakings' as defined under S. 2(g) of the Workers Act, 1961?

Whether the workmen employed in connection with these vehicles fall within the definition of S.
2(h) defining 'Motor Transport Worker' in as much as these workers are covered by the Andhra
Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (now 1988)?

Reasoning

 In our view, the members of the petitioner Federation clearly fall within the definition of 'motor
transport undertaking' in S. 2(g) of the Workers Act, 1961 in as much as they own and employ
vehicles and are therefore 'private carriers' in their trade. The Supreme Court in Raipur
Municipality v. State of M. P. (supra) was dealing with a similar case. There a complaint was
filed against the Municipal Council for non-registration of the Council under the Workers Act,
1961 even though it was employing 50 transport workers including drivers, conductors,
mechanics etc. Confirming the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the Act was
applicable in asmuch as the Council fell within the words 'private carrier' in the definition of
'motor transport undertaking' in S. 2(g). Their Lordships observed (at 1924 of AIR) :

"It seems to us that the accused fell within the definition of 'private carrier' in asmuch as the
Council owned transport vehicles and used these vehicles solely for the carriage of goods which
are its property."

If the workers governed by Shops and Establishments Act are expressly excluded from the
definition of 'motor transport workers' in S. 2(h) of the Workers Act, 1961, it cannot still be said
that the Workers Act, 1961 will apply to a motor transport undertaking employing workers who

36 | P a g e
are covered by the Shops and Establishments Act. It will amount to implying an inconsistency
between the State Law and the Central law in spite of a deliberate provision in the Central law
for avoiding such an inconsistency. The reasoning of the Patna High Court that if a repugnancy
was not implied, the Workers Act, 1961 cannot possibly apply to any undertaking what-so-ever,
does not, with great respect, appeal to us. In our view, the Workers Act would apply to all other
undertakings employing workers covered by the main part of S. 2(h). The specific exclusion by
Parliament of two types of workers from S. 2 (h) shows that Parliament was of the view that such
exclusion will not leave the main part of S. 2(h) otiose.

Judgment

The Commissioner of Labour or any other competent subordinate authority will issue notices to
the 18 traders mentioned in the Annexure to furnish copies of the certificates of registration
under the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act together with the details of the persons employed by
them for the purpose of operating and maintaining the motor vehicles in connection with their
trade or business;

The concerned authority will verify -

(a) Whether the shop or establishment is registered under the A.P. Shops & Establishments
Act and (b) Whether the persons employed for the purpose of operating and maintaining the
motor vehicles are included in the certificate of registration. If the traders do not furnish the
information within the stipulated time, it is open to the concerned authority to undertake
necessary verification by itself.

If it is found that the shop or establishment is not registered or that the employees connected with
the motor vehicles are not included in the application form filed under the Shops and
Establishments Rules, it is open to the concerned authority to enforce the provisions of the Motor
Transport Workers Act against the trader concerned, till such times as they are covered by the
A.P. Shops & Establishments Act.

Till such verification is made, the respondents shall not apply the provisions of the Motor
Transport Workers Act in respect of the 18 traders mentioned in the Annexure.

37 | P a g e
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Advocate fee Rs. 350/-.

9) The Management Of C.E.S.Onyx Pvt.Ltd vs The Deputy Inspector Of Labour

Facts

The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956
and providing municipal solid waste management services in the three zones viz., VI, VIII and X
of Chennai since March 2000 as per the contract signed with the Corporation of Chennai. It was
also pleaded that the petitioner-Company has been duly complying with the labour legislation
applicable to them. Whileso, an inspection took place by the officers coming from Labour
Department. After completing the inspection, the authorities from the Labour Department were
of the view that the petitioner Company being a motor transport undertaking, found fault with
them for not applying for registration under the Motor Transport Workers Act by issuing the
impugned notice alleging violation of provisions of the motor Transport Workers Act. In this
backdrop, challenging the impugned notice the present writ petition was filed.

Issue

Whether the petitioner stating that the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act 1961 was
not applicable to its establishment as the petitioner was not a 'Motor Transport Undertaking'
within the meaning of section 2(g) of the Act is true or not?

Whether the petitioner has to reply to the show cause notice produced by the respondent?

Reasoning

A careful reading of the above provisions clearly shows that though a person may be a Motor
Transport Worker falling under the main part of the definition under section 2(h), still he shall be
taken out of the purview of the said expression if he is a person to whom the provisions of any
law relating to Shops and Establishments Act which regulates the conditions of service of
persons employed therein apply. In the present case as rightly argued by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner management has got registration of some of the employees under
the provisions of the Factories Act and some of the employees under the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, therefore, the case of the petitioner completely gets

38 | P a g e
excluded by section 2(h) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, carries more force. For, it must be
made very clear that when section 2(h) clearly says that if any person who is employed in a
factory as defined under the Factories Act 1948 is covered under the Factories Act, it need not be
again registered under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.

It must be mentioned that the argument placed before this Court that the petitioner should be
relegated back to the respondent to give a detailed explanation will not solve the purpose. The
reason being that it is not a case where the petitioner has not offered any explanation to the
respondent and instead has rushed to this court prematurely. Because when the initial show cause
notice was issued on 20.4.2004, the explanation was given on 7.7.2004. The respondent, on
receipt of the said explanation, once again clarified that the petitioner management is falling
under the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act 1961. Under this background, if the
submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent
that the petitioner should be relegated to the respondent to give one more explanation, is
accepted that will certainly and unnecessarily give rise to a waste of time not only to the
respondent but also to the petitioner, as the issue is no more res integra in the light of the ratio
held in A.P.State Trade Federation.

Judgment

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the respondent has already
prejudged the issue that the petitioner management is covered under the provisions of the Motor
Transport Workerss Act 1961 inspite of the repeated explanations offered by the petitioner as
mentioned above in their explanation, again relegating the petitioner back to the respondent
would not serve the purpose, therefore the impugned notice is liable to go, accordingly the same
is set aside.

In fine, W.P.No.6333/2005 is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently,

connected pending WPMP No.6937/2005 is closed.

10)Medical Superintendent School Of Nursing vs Assistant Labour Commissioner

Facts

39 | P a g e
The petitioner is the Medical Superintendent of the School of Nursing managed by the Bangalore
Baptist Hospital, Hebbal, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act.

The parent organisation, namely M/s. Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society is a minority charitable
institution, established with an object to cater to the needs of the general public in and around the
city of Bangalore in the matter of health care. The petitioner is the administrative head of both
the institutions.

It is submitted that as a part of its objective M/s. Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society has
established the School of Nursing in or about 1996. In the School of Nursing students are trained
to take up the avocation of nursing. The parent organisation which is running the hospital
functions as a catalyst in that it gives practical training to the students being a teaching hospital.
The School of Nursing is not a separate establishment or entity and is an integral part of the
Bangalore Baptist Hospital.

It is further submitted that there are about 39 students in the school. As a part of their study,
students of the school are required to participate in community health postings in rural areas,
psychiatry postings in hospitals other than the parent hospital, field trips and other special
programmes. For the transportation of the students to take part in the aforesaid activities, the
school bus is exclusively used. The bus accommodates 22 persons plus driver. The bus carries 20
students plus two faculty members and the driver. The bus owned by the school is exclusively
used for the transportation of the students of the school.

While the matter stood thus, the respondent hereinabove issued a notice dated 5-12-1997
under Section 3 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and Rule 4 of the Karnataka Motor
Transport Workers Rules, 1964 by which notice the respondent directed the petitioner to get
registered being the owner of vehicle being a Swaraj Mazda van bearing registration No. KA 04
8247 under Rule 4 of Karnataka Motor Transport Workers Rules, 1964. A copy of the notice
dated 5-12-1997 bearing No. SKA-1:MTA: CR-662 of 1997 issued by the respondent is
produced at Annexure-A and the same was received by the petitioner on 24-12-1997.

The petitioner after receipt of the said notice vide Annexure-A placed the same in the hands of
their Advocate with a request to send an appropriate reply. The petitioner replied inter alia,

40 | P a g e
contending that the notice was without jurisdiction. It was further contended that Section 3 of the
Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and Rule 4 of the Karnataka Motor Transport Workers
Rules, 1964 have no application insofar as the petitioner was concerned. It was pointed out to the
respondent that under Section 3 of the said Act only an employer of a 'Motor Transport
Undertaking' is required to obtain registration of the undertaking.

The petitioner urged the respondent to withdraw the notice vide Annexure-A in his reply dated
23-1-1998, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B.

Issue

Whether the vehicle of petitioner that was sought to be registered under the Karnataka Motor
Transport Workers Act was a vehicle that was used for hire or reward?

Whether the petitioner has to register under the Karnataka Motor Transport Workers Act?

Reasoning

Where an establishment is engaged exclusively in carrying on a particular type of business by

setting up any place of work with a view to carrying on the work of repairs etc., to the tools,
equipment, vehicles etc., used in its business or to carry on any other activity which is essential
for its business effectively and which is not use to carry on the work for the benefit of any third
party but utilised exclusively for the business of the establishment, such establishment does not
cease to carry on exclusively the business in which it is engaged. It cannot also be said that the
establishment has commenced to carry on another industry by the setting up of such a place of
work. In order to discharge effectively its functions as engineers and engineering contractors
engaged in building and construction industry, an establishment has to maintain a workshop or
workshops where the work of smithy, welding, cutting, carpentry etc., are carried on. In the
instant case the work carried on at the appellant-company's workshop at Bombay was the work
of maintaining and repairing of the equipment belonging to the appellant only. The appellant was
earning any income or profit by carrying on the work of any other establishment at the said
workshop. It is wrong to treat the workshop in question as a separate unit of the business of the
appellant forming a separate establishment for purposes of determining whether the Act is
applicable to the appellant or not. All the business operations carried on by the appellant in their

41 | P a g e
totality should be taken into consideration in order to ascertain whether the appellant was
engaged exclusively in building and construction industry or not. Such a workshop in which
works connected with the business of building and construction industry of the owner were being
carried on cannot be construed as a separate establishment for purposes of the Act.

Judgement

In this case, the registration of vehicle is required, if the vehicle is a 'motor transport undertaking'
as defined under Section 2(g) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.

In the facts of this case admittedly, the vehicle that was sought to be registered under the Act was
not a vehicle that was used for hire or reward.

In these circumstances, relying on the Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court,
the impugned notice at Annexures-A and C so liable to set aside and is accordingly set aside.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

11)Case Name: The Management Of Sathyabama vs Pudhiya Jananayaga Vagana

Facts

The case of the Union, comprising of drivers and technical personnel, is that they are entitled for
bonus under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act (in short, ‘Bonus Act’) under which the
Management is bound to pay bonus to its employees. The Management runs buses for the
transportation of its students, teaching and non-teaching staff to the University, both morning
and evening, and collects, according to the Union, substantial transportation fee from the
students as well as the employees using the facility, in addition to the tuition fee collected from
the students. As such, it is entitled to share the profits from such transport fee.

Before the Conciliation Officer, a stand was taken by the Management to the effect that
the Bonus Act would not apply in the light of the exemption provided in terms of section 32(v)
(b) thereof. This claim was sought to be rubbished by the Union on the ground that the

42 | P a g e
University was run on commercial lines and is hugely profitable and the Institution is thus liable
to share its profits with the union members. The Union also argued that the Institution was
http://www.judis.nic.in registered as an Undertaking under the Motor Transport Workers
Act 1961 (in short ‘MTW Act’) and for this reason also, was entitled to bonus for its members.

The Tribunal was swayed by the arguments of the Union coming to the conclusion that the
Institution was not just profitable, but was indulging in profiteering and thus would not be
entitled to the exemption sought for by it. The claim of bonus by the Union of 20% along with
interest at 18% for the year 2012-13 was granted by application of the doctrine of casus omissus
and appending the words, ‘not-for-profit’ to Universities and Educational institutions exempted
from the payment of bonus in terms of Section 32(v)(b).

Issue

Whether the management has been registered under the The Tamil Nadu Motor Transport
Workers Act, 1961?

Whether being registered under The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 will exempt the
institution from paying bonus to their employees?

Reasoning

The Institution itself is registered as an ‘undertaking’ under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Motor Transport Workers Act 1961. He refers to various judgments to show that in a case where
the Institution comprises within itself a Motor Transport Undertaking (in short ‘MTU’) as in the
present case, the entity would assume the character of an MTU entitling the employees to bonus.
The exemption under Section 32(v)(b) thus becomes unavailable to the Institution.

The allegation in the present case is that the Institution earns substantial fees/collection from the
facility of transport offered to its students and staff. Though the financials of the Institution have
been sought, the same have not been produced till date. The Institution does not dispute that a fee
is collected for such service, but maintains that such fee is only for the purpose of meeting the

43 | P a g e
running costs as well as the costs incurred for the management of this facility and the same is not
being run on commercial lines.

I do not propose to delve into a fact-finding exercise to determine whether the fee collected for
transport is only to meet costs or intended to generate profit as it is both beyond the scope of and
unnecessary for the purposes of the issue raised before me. The Institution is, admittedly,
registered as a MTU as, in terms of Section 5 of the MTW Act, being an entity that employs
more than five (5) motor transport workers. However, the factum of registration as a MTU, by
itself, therefore, does not advance the case of the Union for entitlement to bonus.

Judgment

One has to rest content with the provisions of sections of section 32(v)(b) that, in my firm view,
support the stand of the Management. Which states that the management is not liable to pay the
bonus amount to the employees as they are already registered under the MTW Act, 1961 and the
rightful money and extra payment supposed to be paid by the institution is regularly paid. In the
light of the discussion as above, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and this Writ
Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.

12)Case Name: Father Raymond Coelho vs Labour Inspector

Facts

The Labour Inspector, Jaipur submitted a complaint before the Magistrate against St. Ansel's
Pink City School (Roman Catholic Diocesan Education Society, Ajmer), Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
with the allegations that the petitioner was an undertaking to which the provisions of Motor
Transport Workers Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act of 1961') applied and the petitioner was an
employer/Manager of the undertaking. It was further alleged that on 13.3.95 the Inspector made
an inspection and found violations of different provisions of the Act of 1961 and the Rules made
under it. As a result the petitioner was prosecuted for offence Under Sections 31 and 32 of the
said Act. Learned Magistrate vide his order dated 9.6.95 took cognizance and issued process

44 | P a g e
against the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that a question has cropped up whether the
provisions of the Act of 1961 apply to this case ?

Issue

Whether the provisions of the MTW Act of 1961 apply to the institution?

 Whether the petitioner can be regarded as motor transport undertaking?

Reasoning

The complaint does not disclose as to whether any hire charges were being taken from the
students or from teachers as passengers. Learned PP is perhaps presuming the things. There is no
enclosure with the complaint which may prima facie show if any charges as hire were being
taken from the students or teachers who are carried in the vehicles. Therefore, to say that the
vehicles are carrying students as passengers by road for hire is of no help to the prosecution.
Therefore the Institution cannot be considered as an Undertaking.

Here in this case the society is concerned with the education and runs an institution which is
affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. The petitioner is the
principal of the school. The society as well as the Principal cannot be held to be an employer of a
transport undertaking by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, in my view the provisions of the
Act of 1961 do not apply to such an institution.

Judgment

I am aware that it is in very rare cases that an order taking cognizance is quashed under the
provisions of Section 482 Cr. P.C. but when I am finding that by summoning the accused
petitioner, the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind if the Act of 1961 was applicable to
the petitioner and when I find that it is an abuse of process of Court which should be prevented
in the beginning, I have no alternative but to quash the order of the learned Magistrate.

45 | P a g e
In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated
9.6.95 and the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 515/95, State v. Fr. Raymond Coelho and another
pending before the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur are hereby
quashed.

13) Case Name: Naranji Peraji Transport Co. vs Ramnikbhai B. Waghela

Facts

The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was in employment with the
petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the transport company") for more than nine years. It
appears that on 1st May, 1980, the workman resigned from the service and on 23rd July, 1980,
he preferred the above Recovery Application No. 1322 of 1980 under Section 33-C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The workman claimed that
every day he had worked for nearly 12 hours and he was, therefore, entitled to overtime for three
hours every day. He further claimed that he had worked on all Sundays without any leave and he
was entitled to a weekly-off. He, therefore, claimed wages for 468 Sundays. He also claimed
wages for 63 days' leave and bonus at the rate of 20 per cent for S.Y. 2036. The Labour Court,
under its impugned judgment and award, rejected the claim of the workman for overtime for
three hours every day and the wages for 63 days' leave. The Court did award a sum of Rs.
14,348.88 ps. for 468 Sundays, the workman claimed to have worked and also the bonus as
claimed by the workman.

Feeling aggrieved, the transport company has preferred this petition. Learned Advocate Mr.
Chari has appeared for the transport company. He has submitted that the amount being nominal,
he does not press his challenge to the bonus awarded to the workman and he confines his
challenge to the overtime awarded to the workman for 468 Sundays that the workman alleged to
have worked.

Issue

46 | P a g e
Whether in case of workman, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has been specifically made
applicable and the same shall apply to the claims arising out of the provisions contained in Motor
Transport Workers Act, 1961?

Reasoning

 The Court held that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was specially enacted for the benefit of all
wage earners. However, a special enactment has been enacted, i.e., Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
for the benefit of a class of wage earners, i.e., those who are the workman as defined
under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A further enactment has been made for the
benefit of the motor transport workers, i.e., Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. In view
of Section 25 of the said Act, the provisions contained in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as in
force for the time being shall apply to the motor transport workers engaged in the motor transport
undertaking. Section 37 of the said Act provides that the provisions of the said Act shall have the
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith 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 said Act. Hence, the Court held that in cases of motor transport workers, Payment of
Wages Act, 1936 has been specifically made applicable and the same shall apply to the claims
arising out of the provisions contained in Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. In that view of the
matter, the motor transport worker should have approached the authorities under the Payment of
Wages Act, 1936 for claim arising of the said Act and, therefore, the Labour Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. In the matter of M/s. R.
L. Kalathia & Co. (supra), this Court held that both the remedies one under the Art and the other
under the Minimum Wages Act were available to the workman and the fact that the workman
could have availed of the remedy under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 would not prohibit the
workman from going to the Labour Court for computation of their claims under Section 33-
C(2) of the Act. Similar is the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Town Municipal
Council, Athani (supra). It is true that if more than one remedy is available to a workman, the
workman may choose to prosecute either of the remedies available to him. In my opinion, the
Delhi High Court is right in holding that the only remedy available to the motor transport worker
was under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. In the present case, the workman is a motor
transport worker and, therefore, in my view, as is held by the Delhi High Court, the application

47 | P a g e
under Section 33-C(2) before the Labour Court was not competent. The Labour Court wrongly
rejected the preliminary issue raised by the transport company.

Judgement

In view of the above reasoning and my decision that the application under Section 33-C(2) was
not maintainable before the Labour Court, I need not dwell upon the issue of delay raised by Mr.
Chari. I, therefore, do not deal with the same.

Petition is, therefore, allowed. Mr. Chari states that pursuant to the interim order granted by this
Court, the transport company had deposited a sum of Rs. 7,500/- in the Labour Court which
amount has been withdrawal by the workman. He states that the transport company shall not
recover the aforesaid amount of Rs. 7,500/- which is paid to the workman as aforesaid. Rule is
made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.

14) Case Name: Municipal Council Raipur & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Facts

 Inspector Ahuja inspected the Municipal Council, Raipur, under the Motor Transport Workers
Act, 1961---hereinafter referred to as the Act--and found that 50 transport workers, including
drivers, conductors, mechanics, etc., had been employed by the Council but the Council had not
been registered as required under s. 3(1) of the Act. He filed a complaint before the Special
Magistrate and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, who issued summons to the accused, namely,
the Municipal Council and the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Raipur. The accused
appeared by counsel and filed preliminary objections. Before the Magistrate two. points were
taken: (1) that the Municipal Council was not a 'motor transport undertaking' within s. 2(g) of the
Act, and (2) that the Council was exempt under s. 38 of the Act insofar as it uses the vehicles for
transporting sick or injured persons. and for maintenance of public order, i.e., for transporting
night soil and refuse of the town free of charges. The Magistrate accepted these contentions and
dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused persons.

Issue

48 | P a g e
(1) whether a revision lay under s. 439, Cr. P.C. The contention was that the accused had been
acquitted and not discharged and, therefore, only a.n appeal under s. 417. Cr.P.C., lay; (2) that
the Municipal Council does not fall within the definition of the expression "motor transport
undertaking" in s. 2(g); and

(3) that the transport vehicles owned by the Municipal Council are exempt under s. 38(1) of the
Act.

Reasoning

The expression "private carrier" is defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to mean "an owner
of a transport vehicle other than a public carrier who uses that vehicle solely for the carriage of
goods which are his property or the carriage of which is necessary for the purposes of his
business not being a business of providing transport, of who. uses the vehicle for any of the
purposes specified in sub-section (2) of section 42." A "transport vehicle" is defined in the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939, to mean "a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle," and a ":goods vehicle"
is defined to mean "any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, or
any motor vehicle not so. constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in
addition to passengers." "Goods" is defined as follows: "Goods" includes live-stock, and
anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) car-

ried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried
in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers
travelling in the vehicle."

Judgement

The High Court overruled the preliminary objection and held that a revision lay under s. 439, Cr.
P.C., because the order passed by the Magistrate was an order of discharge and not of acquittal.
On the second point the High Court held that the Municipal-Council fell within the definition of
the expression "motor transport undertaking". On tire third point the High Court held that the
vehicles of the Municipal Council did not come within the exemption under s. 38 of the Act.

49 | P a g e
The High Court agree that the functions of the Municipal Council in carrying night soil and in
distributing water do not fail within "maintenance of public order." In the result the appeal fails
and is dismissed.

15) Case Name: Ratheesh.M.C. vs The Secretary, Regional Transport

Facts

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Thiruvilwamala
- Thanikudam on the strength of Ext.P1 permit. The timing in respect of the said service was
settled as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 5.8.2005. While settling the time schedule the running
time was fixed as 2.5 minutes per kilometer. Complaining that the running time for other stage
carriages operating on the same route or sectors thereof is only 2 minutes and therefore his time
schedule should also be revised, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 petition dated 23.12.2010 before
the respondent for revision of the time schedule. In that application the petitioner has also stated
that on account of the longer running time his employees are forced to work continuously for
more than eight hours thereby resulting in violation of section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act
and section 13 of the Motor Transport Workers Act.

Issue

Whether the respondent has to settle the timings having due regard to section 91 of the Motor
Vehicles Act and section 2(f) and section 13 of the Motor Transport Workers Act?

Reasoning
The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that the petitioner had earlier moved this
Court seeking revision of the time schedule after reducing the running time to 2 minutes per
kilometer. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 10.8.2010 this Court directed the respondent to
consider the application for reducing the timings. The petitioner himself states that a timing
conference was held on 22.12.2010. He has however stated that till date orders have not been
issued pursuant to the timing conference convened on 22.12.2010. The petitioner relies on
Exts.P6 and P7 judgments of this Court to contend that when an application pointing out
violation of section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act and section 13 of the Motor Transport Workers
Act is filed the respondent has a duty to consider the same and pass orders thereon. The question

50 | P a g e
whether the petitioner is entitled to have his time schedule revised by reducing the running time
is already pending before the respondent. In such circumstances if the respondent has not till date
issued orders on the petitioner's application for revision of the time schedule pursuant to the
W.P(C) NO.249/2011 directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, I am of the opinion
that the respondent should consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 application also
while taking a decision in the matter.

Judgement

I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the
request in Ext.P5 as well while passing orders pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment on the application for
revision of time schedule if till date orders have not been passed in the application for revision of
the time schedule. If orders have already been passed pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, the
respondent shall inform the petitioner of the same.

CONCLUSION

The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 came into existence in March, 1962. This act was
legislated exclusively for regulating the varied employment conditions. Before this, no other act
exists which dealt with motor transport workers wholly however, there were certain enactments
such as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Factories Act, 1948 which covered certain welfare
provisions and employment conditions of the motor transport workers. Therefore, this triggered
the Parliament for the special enactment in 1961. This legislation helps the employees and
employers equally as the a detailed instructions on how the welfare of the employees should be
dealt by the employer is stated in the act. It reduces the possibility of difficulty being faced by
the employees and for the aspect of the employees, they have clear ideas on what their rights are
regarding the bonus available, number of working hours, leaves available, responsibility, etc. is
stated clearly in the act. Also this act as it is specifically for Motor Transport Undertaking
workers, it helps to bring clear cut clarity in matters.

The objective of the Act however apparently replicates the reason behind the enactment. The act
has been enforced to bestow special rights to the motor transport workers for their welfare and to
provide them with amicable working conditions. In order to make this act in consonance with

51 | P a g e
other enactments, two of them has been amended namely the Central Labor Laws (Extension to
Jammu and Kashmir) Act, 1970 and the Delegated Legislative Provisions (Amendment) Act,
1985.

52 | P a g e