The provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, do not apply to employees drawing wages over Rs. 1,600/- per month.

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-Committee, which is stated to be affiliated to national Mazdoor Union, represents the work-men in Tyre Retrading Unit of the andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation (APSRTC ). It is aggrieved by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 4-5-1992 and 25-5-1992 proposing to recover the wages from the workmen on the ground that they absented, themselves, from work without any reasonable or justifiable cause. The third respondent, however, issued a show-cause notice on 24-4-1992 requiring the workmen to submit their explanations within seven days from the date of exhibition of the notice as to why a penal wage cut of eight days in addition to the wage cut for the days of absence should not be imposed and recovered from their salaries for april, 1992, payable in May, 1992. It is alleged in the said show-cause notice that a section of the workers of Tyre Retrading shop, Golconda Region have absented themselves from work enmass on 13th and 14th of April, 1992 in concert and the concerted action by the workers on the said date has resulted in loss of production which has its effect on the operation of bus services to the travelling public. The third respondent is purported to have issued the said notice under Section 9 of the Payment of Wages Act,1936, (for short the Act ). Each of the workmen have submitted their explanation individually, which is similar in its contents.

( 2 ) THE workmen have denied the allegations made against them. According to them, they have applied for leave in advance and there was no concerted action on their behalf to abstain from duty. Be that as it may, the workmen have questioned the decision of the third respondent to issue such a notice contending that the provisions of the Act are not applicable in their case, as each one of them draw the wages over and above rs. 1,600/- per month. The third respondent having considered the explanations submitted to the show-cause notice, passed the impugned order on 4-5-1992 declaring that all the workmen have absented suddenly for duties enmass without any reasonable cause and without prior intimation. It is held that the mere fact that they have applied for leave is no ground to abstain from duty without knowing as to whether the leave applied for by them has been sanctioned or otherwise as per the Leave regulations, 1963.

( 3 ) WITH regard to the objection raised by the workmen as to the applicability of the provisions of the Act, the third respondent held that all the employees are workmen. It is observed by the third respondent that if they are not covered by the provisions of the Payment of Wages act, they are also not covered by all other legislative Enactments like, the Factories act etc. Hence, it is clear from the above fact that they will come under the purview of the Payment of Wages Act". It is also observed by the third respondent that some of the employees have not submitted any explanation to the notice and, therefore, it shall be deemed that they have accepted the allegations levelled against them in the show-cause notice. The third respondent, accordingly ordered for the recovery of the amounts towards penal wage cut from the salary for the month of April, 1992.

( 4 ) SRI A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order suffers from incurable legal infirmities and jurisdictional errors. It is submitted that the respondents have no jurisdiction or authority in law to impose any penal wage cut in purported exercise of their power under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, in respect of the employees who are receiving wages over and above Rs. 1,600/- per month.

( 5 ) THEREFORE, the short question that arises for consideration is - whether the respondents have any authority in law or jurisdiction to impose penal wage cut in respect of its employees who are drawing wages more than Rs. 1,600/- per month.

( 6 ) IT is evident that the respondents

Click Here to Read the rest of this document