JUDGMENT A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the judgment dated July 1, 1986, of the learned single judge in M. P. No. 3911 of 1986 whereby the petition filed by the respondents herein has been allowed and order passed by the chief engineer, dated November 28, 1985, effecting change in working hours of the company has been quashed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that petitioner No. 1, Mecon Executives Association is the association of executives employed in Metallurgical and Engineering Consultants (India) Limited (appellant). Petitioners Nos. 2 to 113 (who are now respondents) are the executives. They challenged order dated November 28, 1985, passed by the chief engineer of the appellant, Metallurgical and Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd. (for short, "the company"), effecting change in office timings for all executives working in Bhilai site office of the company. The appellant-company is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Ranchi in the State of Bihar. The appellant-company is doing the business of design and consultancy services mainly to steel plants and other like industries. It has established its independent branches at various places which are known as site offices. One of such branch offices is also at Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai in District Durg where 235 employees are working out of which 148 employees are executives. According to the petitioners, the appellant-company is a creation of an Act of Parliament and according to the provisions of the Public Sector Iron and Steel (Restructuring) Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1978, no amendment in the service conditions of the employees can be made without giving them an opportunity of being heard in person or by a proper resolution of the board of directors and approval of the Ministry of Steel and Mines. It was, therefore, contended that the chief engineer of the appellant-company by order dated Novem-ber 28, 1985, could not increase the working hours in respect of executives employed in the office without increasing the working hours of the non-executives. Hence, the petitioners challenged the order dated November 28, 1985, issued by the chief engineer of the appellant-company by filing petition. It was, therefore, contended that the chief engineer of the appellant-company by order dated Novem-ber 28, 1985, could not increase the working hours in respect of executives employed in the office without increasing the working hours of the non-executives. Hence, the petitioners challenged the order dated November 28, 1985, issued by the chief engineer of the appellant-company by filing petition. It was contended that change in working hours was effected increasing the working hours from 36 hours to 43.5 hours per week in an arbitrary and unilateral manner without giving extra remuneration for working for more than six and half hours per day. It was alleged that the order is discriminatory as compared to the working hours of the executives working in other branches. 3. The appellant-company in its return pointed out that according to the terms of appointment, the employees are bound by the rules of the company in force from time to time and as per Rule 3.1 of the Establishment Manual, Chapter-3 (annexure R1), working hours in any office shall be such as are notified by the company from time to time. It is also pointed out that working hours in different site offices of the company namely Hyderabad, Vizag, Gurgaon and Bhamnipal are 48 hours per week. The company refuted the allegation that the amendment in service conditions of the employees of the company cannot be made without giving them opportunity of hearing in person, or any change in service conditions requires approval of the Ministry of Steel and Mines. The appellant-company has also pointed out that the change in working hours is not a change in service conditions, and change in working hours is decided by the competent authority, i.e., chairman-cum-managing director. It was also pointed out that the chairman-cum-managing director has been delegated by the board of directors to exercise power of the board during the period in between two board meetings in which case approval of the board of directors will be taken in the next board meeting for revision of the working hours. It is also pointed out that increase in working hours of the executives of Bhilai site office was done after due deliberation and in the interest of the company. 4. It is also pointed out that increase in working hours of the executives of Bhilai site office was done after due deliberation and in the interest of the company. 4. The learned single judge, after considering rival submissions, came to the conclusion that no material was placed before him whether the order passed by the chief engineer of the appellant-company has approval of the board of directors or not, though it was contended before the learned single judge that the subject of increasing of timing was discussed with the chairman-cum-managing director of the company and it was decided that all the executives of the site office will follow the office timing as applicable to all executives of the respective steel plants. It is alleged that the order was passed by the chairman-cum-managing director in between the board meetings and he has full powers and immediately the matter was reported to the board and ex-post facto approval was granted by the board in its meeting. The learned single judge held that no material was placed before the court to show that the resolution was accepted in the board meeting and subsequently it was approved by the board of directors. Hence, the learned single judge quashed the order passed by the chief engineer and allowed the petition. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single judge, the present appeal has been filed by the company and an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code has also been filed praying for taking on record the original order of the chairman-cum-managing director dated November 25, 1985, and minutes of the board of directors meeting dated March 10 and 13, 1986. The minutes record :-- "Resolved that the changes as effected by the chairman-cum-managing director in the office hours in these offices be and are hereby ratified with effect from the dates of change." "Further resolved that, the chairman-cum-managing director be and is hereby authorised to make such changes, in future, in the working hours of the various offices of the company as may be considered necessary by him." 6. It shows that the matter was discussed by the chief engineer with the chairman-cum-managing director who approved the change which is apparent from the record placed in this appeal as annexure 1, dated November 25, 1985, and, thereafter, the board meeting took place and therein it was ratified by the board of directors. It was further resolved that in future also the chairman-cum-managing director will be competent to effect change in working hours. 7. It is true that at the time the matter was argued before the learned single judge, the proceedings were not placed before him. Now the proceedings have been placed on record which show that the decision was taken by the chairman-cum-managing director in between the board meetings and the decision was ratified by the board of directors. The board of directors is competent to lay down working hours. No provision of law has been shown by any party that there are any service rules which lay down working hours. If there are any rules which regulate the working hours, then naturally such rules would be applicable. But, in the present case, we find that no such rules have been brought to our notice ; therefore, it cannot be said that the determination of working hours is a part of the service conditions. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Their Workmen, AIR 1973 SC 968 , have held thus (headnote) : "But where there is nothing to show that it was a condition of service that an employee would work 61/2 hours only nor is there anything to that effect in the appointment letter of the employee, then Section 9A would not be applicable. The mere fact that while the workshop was under completion and there was not enough accommodation for the office/administrative staff in the workshop building, they were accommodated in another building and worked there along with other clerks for only 61/2 hours in a day for a period of six months, will not make it a condition for their service." 8. Thus, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have also held that increase in working hours does not amount to change in service conditions. 9. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single judge does not appear to be well founded. Thus, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have also held that increase in working hours does not amount to change in service conditions. 9. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single judge does not appear to be well founded. Hence, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of learned single judge dated July 1, 1986, and dismiss the petition. There shall be no order as to costs.