Change in working hours not a service-condition variation where company rules allowed revision and board ratified the decision.

An employer may revise office working hours where its governing rules permit notification of hours from time to time and no rule or contract fixes working hours as an immutable service condition. The High Court noted that the chairman-cum-managing director approved the change between board meetings and the board later ratified it, confirming the authority for the decision. On that basis, the increase in working hours was not treated as a prohibited change in service conditions, and the challenge to the revised hours failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether enhancement of office working hours by the company amounted to an impermissible change in service conditions and whether the order could stand in the absence of prior board approval.

Analysis: The company's establishment manual empowered it to notify working hours from time to time, and no rule was shown that fixed working hours as an immutable term of employment. The material placed in appeal showed that the chairman-cum-managing director approved the change between board meetings and the board subsequently ratified the decision, thereby confirming the competence of the authority that made the change. Increase in working hours, in these circumstances, did not amount to a change in service conditions.

Conclusion: The challenge to the revised working hours failed, and the company's action was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the single judge was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed because the alteration of working hours was held to be within the company's power and not a prohibited variation of service conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a rule or contractual term fixing working hours as a condition of service, the employer may alter working hours in accordance with its governing authority, and such alteration does not by itself constitute a change in service conditions.

---