SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Kar) 461

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
P.A. Kulkarni, J.
Karnataka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. —Appellant
Vs.
Karpi —Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2405 of 1980
Decided on : 13-10-1986

Subsistence allowance does not amount to a deduction from wages within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

Headnote:

Payment of Wages Act - Application under Section 15(2) - Sections 15(2), 7 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and its applicability to the case. It also considered the provisions of Section 7 of the Act regarding deductions from wages and the definition of subsistence allowance. The court emphasized that subsistence allowance does not amount to a deduction from wages and does not fall within the meaning of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, an employee under the revision petitioner, filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, alleging that the subsistence allowance given to him during suspension amounted to a deduction from his wages. The District Judge set aside the order made by the Authority under the Act and remanded the matter for disposal according to law and on merits.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application under Section 15(2) of the Act was not competent as subsistence allowance does not amount to a deduction from wages within the meaning of the Act. It allowed the revision and set aside the remand order passed by the District Judge, restoring the order passed by the Authority dismissing the Petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act was maintainable in the case of subsistence allowance given during suspension.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that subsistence allowance does not amount to a deduction from wages within the meaning of the Act, based on the interpretation of Sections 15(2) and 7 of the Act.

Final Decision: The revision was allowed, the order of remand passed by the District Judge was set aside, and the order passed by the Authority dismissing the Petition was restored. No costs were awarded.

ORDER

1. This is a revision by the Karnataka Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, against the order dated 14th April, 1980 passed by the District Judge, Dharwad, in M.A. No. 55/79 setting aside the order of the Appointment Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and remanding the matter for disposal according to law and on merits.

2. The respondent is an employee under the revision petitioner. Disciplinary action was started against the respondent by the revision petitioner and he was kept under suspension. It ordered payment of one-fourth of basic salary as subsistence allowance to the respondent. The respondent, being aggrieved by the award of one-fourth of basic salary as subsistence allowance, filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Authority concerned alleging that he was entitled to the full salary and that payment of one fourth of the basic salary as subsistence allowance was bad and that it amounted to deduction from his wages. The Authority dismissed the petition. The respondent approached the Learned District Judge. The Learned District Judge set aside the order made by the Authority under the Act and remanded the matter to him for disposal according to law and on merits. It is this remand order passed by the Learned District Judge that is questioned by the revision petitioner in this revision.

3. That the respondent is an employee under the revision petitioner is not in dispute at all. That he has been kept under suspension by the revision petitioner, is not in dispute. That he has been given some amount as subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension is not in dispute.

4. Now the question is whether an application under Section 15(2) of the Act is maintainable in such cases.

5. Section 15(2) of the Act reads as :

"Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3)."

6. In order to attract Section 15(2) of the Act, it must be shown that contrary to the provisions of the Act, a deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person. If it is proved accordingly, then only application under Section 15(2) of the Act would be competent. That the respondent is an employee is not in dispute. Learned Counsel Sri Gururajan placed before me the decision in V. K. Govindaswamy Vs. N. Nanjappa 41 FJR 399. It has been held in the said case as :

"The Authority determining a claim under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, has jurisdiction to determine whether the person who has made the application is an employee and this jurisdiction is a part of the jurisdiction of determining the incidental matters arising out of the claim made by the person because the relief under Section 15 cannot be granted unless the Authority has jurisdiction to determine this as an incidental question."

7. A read of the said ruling would show that the relationship of employer and employee itself was in dispute in the said case. This Court held that this dispute can be decided by the Authority under the Act. The question as to whether subsistence allowance would amount to a deduction within the meaning of Section 15(2) of the Act, has not been decided in the said case.

8. Section 7 of the Act reads as :

"7. Deductions which may be made from wages - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890), the wages of an employed person shall be paid to him without deductions of any kind except those authorised by or under this Act.

Explanation I : Every payment made by











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top