Obul Reddy, J.:— In this writ petition, the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules made thereunder is challenged on the ground that they impose unreasonable restrictions on the petitioner's right to carry on motor transport business under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are these: The petitioners are all transport operators having stage carriage permits and public carriage permits in the State. Some of them are also having idle vehicles, which are kept ready for use, whenever temporary permits are granted or to serve as a stand-by in case of breakdown of some vehicles. Normally, a permit is granted for three years subject to its being renewed thereafter at the discretion of the authorities concerned. According to the petitioners, due to increase in the number of vehicles on the routes and competition from other operators the business ceased to be a lucrative one, apart from the high incidents of taxation and rise in prices of diesel oil, spare parts, tyres etc., The operating staff consists of drivers, conductors checking inspectors, clearners etc. They are paid wages in accordance with the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act and in some cases as per the contract of service. In addition, they are also paid batta every day which ranges from Rs. 3/- to Rs. 5/- whenever they are on duty. The sections that are challenged in the course of the arguments of the learned Counsel are Section 1(4), Section 9 read with Rule 23, Section 10(1) Sec. 13 read with Rule 27, Section 17 and Rule 28.
3. Before we quote these provisions it is necessary to refer to the grounds on which they have been challenged. They are: (1) The effect of making Section 1(4) applicable to all transport undertakings without having regard to the number of persons employed by them has resulted in imposing heavy financial burden on small operators or on those who operate on more vehicles on temporary permits. (2) Section 9 read, with Rule 23 has imposed one rous duties making it incumbent upon the employer to provide rest rooms to the workers for their use where there are night-halts. (3) It will be difficult for small operators plying vehicles on temporary permits to put up such structures as prescribed; and that, therefore, it operates as unreasonable restriction on their right to carry on trade of business. (4) Section 10(1) suffers from the same infirmity as Section 9, as it renders it obligatory for the employer to provide even temporary staff with uniforms: and (5) the hours of work prescribed in Section 13 read with Rule 27 make it impracticable of compliance; the split duties prescribed under Section 17 impose another unreasonable restriction on the operators; and Rule 28 is made in excess of the powers conferred upon the rule making authority.
4. This petition is resisted by the State Government and the Government of India and they field separate counters too. It is their case that the Act is enacted by the parliament to provide for the welfare of motor transport workers and to regulate the conditions of their work; that the parliament is competent to make the impugned law by virtue of the powers conferred upon it under Entry 24 in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; and that the Act is made applicable to all the motor transport under-takings employing less than 5-motor transport workers in the State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of G.O Ms. No. 1624, Home (Lab. II) Department dated 11-10-1968 issued by the 2nd respondent. It is also their case that there is nothing in the affidavit of the petitioners to show that any of them employ less than 5 workers and, therefore, they cannot have any grievance that the State Government made the Act applicable to all the motor transport undertakings including those who employ less than 5 workers. The provision regarding the hours of work and night halts was made in the interests of the transport workers and to better their conditions of service and the restrictions imposed are reasonable and made in public interest and, therefore, there are no grounds for issuing a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
5. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether all or any of the impugned provisions are violative of art. 19(I)(g) of the Constitution. The impugned provisions to which our attention has been invited by the learned Counsel, Mr. S.R James, appearing for the petioners are these:
Section 1(4): “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”
Sectioa 9(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 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.”
Section 10(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”.
Section 13: “No adult motor transport worker shall be required or allowed to work for more than eight hours in any day forty-eight hours in any week;
Provided that where any such motor transport worker is enageed in the running of any motor transport service on such long distance routes, 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 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”
Section 17: “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.”
Rule 23: “Rest rooms: The rest Rooms shall conform to the following standards and the employer of every undertaing shall submit for the approval of the Chief Inspector plans and site plan in duplicate of the building to be constructed or adapted:
(a) The building shall be soundly constructed and all the walls and roof shall be of suitable heat-resisting materials and shall be water proof. The floor and walls to a height of 3. ft. shall be so laid or finished as to provide a smooth, hard and impervious suface.
(b) The height of every room in the building shall be not less than 12 ft. from the Floor level to the lowest part of the roof and there shall be at least 50 sq. ft. of floor area for every motor transport worker required to halt at night.
(c) Effective and suitable provision shall be made in every room for securing and maintaining adequate ventilation by the circulation of fresh air and there shall also be provided and maintained sufficient and suitable natural or artificial lighting;
(d) Every rest-room shall be adequently furnished with chairs and cots; and
(e) Every rest-room building and precincts thereof shall be kept in a clean and tidy condition provided that where the Chief Inspector is satisfied that in respect of any particular place the provision of rest-rooms to the above standards is not reasonably practicable he may by order in writing approve any suitable alternative accommodation subject to such conditions as he may specify.”
Rule 27: “Hours of work: (1) The Chief Inspector may on written application from an employer, subject to such conditions and for such period as he may think fit, permit motor transport workers to work for more than 8 hours in any day or 48 hours in any week but in no case more than 10 hours in a day and 54 hours in a week.
(i) on any route of 100 kilometers or more, and
(ii) on such festive or other occasions as may be notified by the Government in the official Gazette.
(2) In any case referred to in the second proviso to section 13, an employer shall not require or allow any motor transport worker to work for more than 16 hours in a day and 72 hours in a week with at least 8 consecutive hours of rest between the termination of duty and commencement of the next duty”.
Rule 28: “Notice of hours of work: (1) The notice of hours of work shall be in Form V.
(2) It shall be written in English and in a language understood by the majority of workers and shall be displayed at a conspicuous place where the motor transport workers ordinarily call for duty and shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition:
Provided that if the Chief Inspector is of opinion that the duty Schedule or any other record maintained as a part of the routine of undertaking gives the particulars required under this rule, he may by order in writing, direct that the maintenance of such record shall be sufficient compliance with the provisions of this rule.
(3) No change in the notice of hours of work shall be allowed unless a three days' clear notice is given to the Inspector indicating the contemplated change in the notice of hours of work”.
6. The Act is brought into force, as may be seen from the preamble, to provide for the welfare of motor transport workers and to regulate the conditions of their work. Prior to the passing of this Act, the service conditions of motor transport workers were regulated by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Factories Act, 1940. Section 9 of the Act corresponds to section 47(2) and (3) of the Factories Act; Section 10 corresponds to Section 42 of the Factories Act; and section 13 to 20 correspond to Section 51, 52 and 53 of the Factories Act. While clause (4) of Section 1 of the Act says that it applies to every motor transport undertaking employing five or more motor transport workers, the proviso to this clause empowers the State Government, after following the procedure prescribed therein, to extend all or any of the provisions of the Act to any motor transport undertaking employing less than five motor transport workers. The state Government by virtue of the power conferred upon it under clause (4) of Sec. 1, after following the procedure prescribed therein, extended the application of the Act to all motor transport undertakings regardless of the number of workers employed. We do not find anything in the procedure adopted by the State Government which vitiates the application of the Act to all transport undertakings regardless of the number of workers employed by each of them. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it is not their case that there is any one among them who has employed less than five transport workers.
7. The main complaint of the petitioners could be conveniently divided into three heads: (I) provision for rest houses; (2) supply of uniforms; and (3) regulation of hours of work in addition to splitting up their duty hours into not more than two spells in a day.
8. Coming to the provision of rest houses, Section 9 contemplates making provision for rest houses where the workers are expected to make a night-halt. A duty is cast upon the employer to provide such number of rest houses or such other suitable alternative accommodation as may be required, having regard to the number of workers that may have to be provided with accommodation. Rule 23 is the rule prescribing the type of rest rooms that should be provided for giving shelter to the workers during nights. If it is not possible to put up a construction according to the specifications laid down in clauses (a) to (e) due to variety of circumstances, it will be open to the operator to move the Chief Inspector and provide suitable alternative accomodation subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Chief Inspector. Therefore, we are not prepared to agree with the learned counsel that Rule 23 enjoins upon an operator under all circumstances to put up a regular building with suitable heat-resisting materials and with water-proof roof. It is common knowledge that there are several villages on long distant routes where night-halts are made and it is difficult in such villages to provide the workers with rest rooms of the type specified in Clauses (a) to (e) of Rule 23. It is for that reason that the proviso to the rule enables the Chief Inspector to relax the rules wherever necessary. The workers, who are asked to make night-halts in places far off their homes, have to be provided with suitable shelter in the nights so that they may not be exposed to the vagaries of weather and to make them physically fit to resume their work the next day. If the cost of the putting up such structures is found to be expensive, a small operator or a temporary permit holder could easily provide the workers with suitable alternative accommodation subject to the satisfacation of the Chief Inspector. A small operator can always rent out a suitable building and make the workers feel comfortable during night-halts. We do not believe that an operator, who invests lakhs of rupees in purchasing vehicles, will find it hard to spend a few hundreds of rupees either for putting up structures as specified in Clauses (a) to (e) of Rule 23 or rent out suitable rooms for accommodating the workers. Even otherwise, his financial capacity is not relevant if it is necessary in the larger interests viz., the welfare of the transport workers. There is nothing to suggest from Section 9 read with Rule 23 that requiring an operator to provide suitable accommodation for the workers during night-halts is not a reasonable restriction or infringes the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on their business in motor transport. The fact that the employers may have to share a greater financial burden than before in providing amenities to the workers is not a ground for holding that the conditions imposed by the impugned provisions or the rules are so onerous as to curtail their right to do business. Dealing with the capacity to pay the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in U. Unichoyi v. State of Kerala]1 observed:
“The policy of the Act is to prevent the employment of such sweated labour in the interests of general public and so in prescribing the minimum wage rates the capacity of the employer need not be considered.”
9. This observation of their Lordships applies with equal force to the present case also.
10. The other question to be considered is whether the insistence on providing uniforms for the workers is an unreasonable restriction upon fundmental rights of the petitioners. An obligation is cast upon the employers under Section 10(1) of the Act to provide for the drivers, conductors and checking staff 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. Uniform is prescribed so that it may be easy for the public or those who are vested with the supervisory power of checking the vehicles, to know who is a conductor who is a driver and who is a line inspector and distinguish them from passengers and the public. Dress regulations also inculcate in the workers a sense of discipline apart from making them look smart. Having regard to the minimum wages paid to the workers under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act the Legislature felt that the workers will not be able, with their limited financial resources, to buy uniforms at their expense and, therefore, the employers are enjoined to provide the workers with uniforms. Asking the employers who invest lakhs of rupees in transport business, to provide the workers with uniforms, which may cost a few hundreds, cannot be construed as an imposition of an unreasonable restriction. It may be pointed out in this connection that the Motor Vehicles Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 make it obligatory on the part of the drivers and conductors to wear the prescribed dress. Rule 45 of the said rules enjoins upon a driver on duty to wear as uniform a closed coat with brass buttons and trousers of khaki or navy blue colour and also a forage cap of the same colour as headgear. Similar uniform was prescribed for the conductors under Rule 83 of the said rules. It is not as if dress regulations for the workers are prescribed for the first time. All that the present Act insists upon is that uniforms shall be provided by the proprietors of the undertakings, and it is one among several conditions imposed on the transport operators for the welfare and well being of the transport wokers. Repelling a similar contention where provision was made for providing certain amenities to workers under the Factories Act, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in B.Y Bshatriya (P) Ltd. v. Union of India observed.
“The Factories Act undoubtedly imposes numerous restrictions upon the employers to secure to the workers adequate safeguards for their health and physical well-being. But imposition of such restrictions is not and cannot be regarded, in the context of the modern outlook on industrial relations, as unreasonable.”
11. Provisions made for the benefit of the motor transport workers cannot therefore be regarded as not reasonable within the meaning of Article 19(I)(g) of the Constitution.
12. So far as the hours of work and splitting up the duty hours into not more than two spells on any day are concerned, we are unable to say that there is any unreasonable restriction. Sec. 13 of the Act provides that no adult motor transport worker shall be required or allowed to work for more than eight hours in any day and forty-eight hours in any week. Of course, this again is subject to certain contingencies referred to in the two provisos to that section. Sec 15 provides that 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. Sec. 17 provides that, subject to the other provisions contained in the act, the hours of work of a motor transport worker shall not be split into more than two spells on any day.
13. This provision, obviously, has been introduced to see that there is not too much strain on a worker and that he does not suffer from over-work or fatigue, which would ultimately affect his health and efficiency. Regulating hours of work having regard to the health and endurance capacity of a workman cannot be said to be an unreasonable restriction infringing upon the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on transport business.
14. The public and social interest in the health and efficiency of the worker is, at the present day, beyond challenge (see Ramadahandas v. State of Punjab].
15. We, therefore, find no merits in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 100/-
16. W.P dismissed with costs.