The judgment established the need for an inquiry before deducting wages and distinguished between mass misconduct and individual conduct.

JUDGMENT - Smt. NISHITA MHATRE, J.:---The short question involved in this writ petition is whether an employer can deduct wages of a workman on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in (Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala others)1, reported in 1990 C.L.R. (S.C.)748 for the reason that the workman has not performed his part of the contract by working although he was present on duty.

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-

The petitioner which is a paint manufacturing company employs several workmen in its establishment. Several settlements have been signed between the petitioner company and the respondent union. It is the case of the respondent that as they did not to the line of the management, the petitioner sponsored another trade union in its establishment and indiscriminately and under some pretext or the other started effecting deduction in the wages of workmen who were members of the respondent union. Two workmen, Puran Baldeo and Rameshchandra Ramsevak Kurmi, were working as skilled workers in the Varnish Department. According to the petitioner, on 3rd August, 1993 these two workmen although present on duty did not carry out the work allotted to them. Their wages were, therefore, deducted on the basis of the principle of "No work no pay" for that day i.e. 3rd August, 1993. The respondent union aggrieved by this, filed Complaint (ULP) No. 993 of 1993 under section 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on behalf of the said two workmen. It appears that during the time when the complaint was pending, Puran Baldeo expired and, therefore, the complaint was restricted to Rameshchandra Ramsevak Kurmi.

3. The allegation in the complaint was that the work which was allotted to the workman was on a seniority and priority basis i.e. works which were to be conducted in the Varnish Department were to be allotted on Seniority basis. According to the respondent, the work performed in the Varnish Department was : (i) Stenciling of drums and barrels; (ii) Filtration of alkyd and MF resins; (iii) Making of saleable varnish and filling of the same in required containers; (iv) Making and filling of thinners; (v) Making varnishes in tank and circulation of the same for the adjustment of constants; and (vi) Premarking of containers and cartons. According to the union, the workmen were allotted the work of premarking, making and filling of containers on seniority basis i.e. premarking was to be done by the senior most skilled workman in the Varnish Department while filling of container by the juniormost. It appears that on 3rd August, 1993, the concerned workman was directed to fill a one litre pouch by his superior and he refused to do so on the ground that the work of making was allotted to his junior Shankar Bhairu. The contention of the union in the complaint was that the petitioner had settled with them this allotment of duty on seniority-cum-priority basis and therefore there was no reason why the petitioner company should have effected deduction of wages from the wages of the said workman. The Union claimed that this deduction was contrary to law and amounts to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act.

4. Written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein they contended that there was no agreement regarding allotment of work on seniority-cum-priority basis and that they had effected deduction in wages on the ground that, although the workman was present on duty, he did not perform the work allotted to him. The petitioners claimed that under the judgment of the Apex Court in Kelawala (supra), they were entitled to deduct wages on the basis of "No work no pay".

5. Evidence was recorded before the Industrial Court, of the workman as well as of Arvind G. Lotlikar, Deputy Manager, Varnish Department, on behalf of the petitioner. The Indust

Click Here to Read the rest of this document