An employer cannot unilaterally reduce wages or emoluments on the ground that the workers have not fulfilled their part of the settlement. The principle of "no work; no wages" cannot be applied to monthly or daily-rated workmen who have attended duty and worked within their fixed duty hours, even if they have indulged in acts of indiscipline or deliberate go-slow tactics.

JUDGMENT :

Mohta, J.

1. The petitioner is a limited company carrying on business of manufacturing conductors, heavy duty underground power and control cables, welding electrodes, etc. The second respondent was working as an employee in the carpentry department of the petitioner's factory at Vithalawadi in District Thane. The third respondent is a registered Trade Union representing the employees in the petitioner's factory. Industrial Court passed an order holding petitioner guilty of an unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule 4 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (in short Maharashtra Act 1, 1972) and directing it to implement a settlement dated 3-8-1974 with effect from 15th October, 1975 till the date of closure of the company, which we are informed in the end of October, 1977. By the present petition this order is impugned.

2. Before proceeding with the points raised it would be necessary to set out certain relevant background. The petitioner had approximately 600 workmen on its roll. Before 3-8-1974 wages and other emoluments were being paid to the workmen in terms of an agreement dated 23rd January, 1971. Undisputed position is that this agreement also provided for payment of agreed wages which were more than the minimum prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. By settlement dated 3-8-1974 there was increase in the basic wages, dearness allowances, house rent, etc. In addition to that production bonus in terms of the scheme to be formulated had also become payable. The workers agreed to make all their efforts to eliminate the factors of low production and to bring up the same to the productivity level of 1964 and to maintain and improve the same. The workers not only agreed to maintain discipline but further agreed not to raise any demand involving financial burden on the company except the demand for bonus till the settlement was terminated in accordance with law. The settlement was binding on the parties up to the end of April, 1977.

3. It is common ground that petitioner company paid wages and other benefits to the workmen in terms of the settlement up to the end of August, 1975. However, from September, 1975 the company refused to pay the production bonus and with effect from 15th October, 1975 it refused to pay basic wages, dearness allowance, house rent, etc., as per the settlement. Notice dated 21st August, 1975 was put up for making a mention that because of the attitude of indiscipline on the part of workers and deliberate go-slow tactics resulting into low production, the management was relieved of its commitments and obligations imposed upon it by the agreement. A notice in terms of S. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was issued in Form III under Rule 37 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) 1957 indicating certain scale of wages to which only, the workers were entitled. The common ground is that these scales conform to the provision of the Minimum Wages Act, and were even less than what was agreed in the earlier agreement dated 23rd January, 1971.

On 22nd November, 1975 the second respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Court at Bombay under S. 28 of the Maharashtra Act No. 1 of 1972. The petitioner filed a short written statement on 24th March, 1976 mentioning that the petitioner had nothing to add to what was stated in the two affidavits of Shri R. V. Patil, the factory Manager, dated 25th November, 1975 and 10th February, 1976. The petitioner did not dispute that it had decided not to pay to the workers wages and other emoluments in terms of the settlement dated 3rd August, 1974. However, the petitioner pleaded justification for so doing on the ground that the workers failed to perform their part of the settlement and as a result they were not entitled to the benefits contained in the settlement. According to the petitioner it was not under an obligation to perform its part of the settlement unless and until the other party t