ORDER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of Mandamus for bearing the respondent from changing shift pattern without complying with section 9-A of I.D. Act. 1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to forbear the respondent from changing shift pattern without complying with section 9-A of Industrial Dispute Act. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is Arasu Pokkuvarathu Thozhilalar Sangam, (Madurai Division - I) and the respondent Corporation operates passenger transport mainly in Madurai and surrounding districts. The respondents have 14 depots during the relevant point of time, near about 6300 workmen are working, out of which 2600 are drivers and 2600 are conductors. 3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that during February 2004, the shift pattern that has been in existence for more than 3 decades was unilaterally changed in one depot after another within Madurai City. The drivers and conductors are now asked to come for duty for the evening shift and to continue their work in the morning shift for the next day. They are forced to work for two shifts continuously. The time gap between the end of the evening shift and the beginning of the morning shift is about 4 to 5 hours only and therefore, the change in shift pattern is opposed to Section 18 of the Motor Transport Workers Act. After completing the evening shift, the conductors are asked to keep their collection with them, except the currency notes. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that in view of the fact that, the gap hours between the one shift and another shift is minimal, the interest of the workmen are affected. No prior notice contemplated under Section 9A of I.D. Act was issued to the unions. Thus, the writ petitioner union is constrained to move the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent made a submission that the petitioner if at all aggrieved has to approach the labour forum and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. For the convenience of the drivers and conductors and also other transport workers, they are allowed to travel in the buses of all State Transport Corporations. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent made a submission that the petitioner if at all aggrieved has to approach the labour forum and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. For the convenience of the drivers and conductors and also other transport workers, they are allowed to travel in the buses of all State Transport Corporations. Most of the drivers and conductors working at the depots of their Corporation in Madurai City are coming from neighboring villages of Madurai City. If they are allowed to work at morning shift, they are facing much difficulties to come from their villages to attend their morning shifts. Like that the drivers and conductors who are performing their duties only in the evening shift are also facing the same difficulties to reach their house after completion of their duty at late night hours. For the convenience of the drivers and conductors, on the basis of their representations, it was decided to allow them to attend their duty in 2nd shift and to continue their duty in morning shift of the next day. By this system the drivers and conductors coming from neighboring villages of Madurai City and also the drivers and conductors who are residing at Madurai City can attend the duty as well as complete the duty in the mid day hours. 6. It is contended that there are 42 Trade unions are functioning. Only the petitioner union has challenged the system of attending evening duty and morning duty of next day consecutively. The petitioner union has not impleaded the other trade unions as parties in the present writ petition. 7. The respondent Corporation is utilizing Electronic ticket machine in almost 75% of the buses and the same system will be introduced in remaining 25% of the buses within a short span of period. At the outset, it is contended that the change of shift system was introduced at the request of the majority of the workmen and for the benefit of the workmen who all are serving in the respondent Transport Corporation. 8. This being the factum of the case, the writ petition deserves no consideration at all. This Court is of an opinion that, challenging the entire shift system cannot be proper on the part of the writ petitioners. Undoubtedly, the rights of the workmen are to be protected. 8. This being the factum of the case, the writ petition deserves no consideration at all. This Court is of an opinion that, challenging the entire shift system cannot be proper on the part of the writ petitioners. Undoubtedly, the rights of the workmen are to be protected. However, the workmen is liable to work for the prescribed period as law contemplates. Certain conveniences and inconveniences were considered by the management in the interest of the workmen and introduced changes in the shift system. 9. The respondents found that the drivers and conductors residing in sub-urban areas are unable to reach the depot during early morning and similarly they are unable to reach their residences after late night hours. Considering all these circumstances, the Transport Corporation introduced a change in the shift pattern. However, it made clear that, if any grievances exist for the writ petitioner's union even now it is left open to them to submit representations before the Competent Authority for their consideration. In the event of submitting any such representation, the Competent Authority shall consider the same if there is any merit. However, the relief as such sought for to forbear the respondent from changing the shift pattern cannot be granted now after a lapse of about 14 years and for the past many years the change in shift pattern is working successfully if the contention raised. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.