Back
1983 Supreme(Cal) 328
High Court Of Calcutta
Amitabha Dutta
SUSHIL KUMAR DAS - Appellant
Versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
C.O.No.2347 (W) Of 1983
Decided On : 12/22/1983
B.N.PANDA, Chuni Lal Ganguli, DILIP SENGUPTA, JITEN GHOSH, MADHUSUDAN BANERJI, SUBRATA ROY CHAUDHURI, TAPAS KUMAR BANERJEE
The principle of "no work no pay" applies to piece-rated workers who are entitled to remuneration in respect of service performed during the month.
Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES - DEDUCTION OF SALARIES FOR NON-PERFORMANCE OF INCREASED QUOTA OF WORK - VALIDITY OF DIGHE AWARD - PRINCIPLE OF "NO WORK NO PAY" - RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - CONTRACTUAL REGULATIONS - WRIT JURISDICTION - HELD, THE BANK WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT PAYING REMUNERATION ON PRO RATA BASIS FOR NOT DOING THE INCREASED QUOTA OF WORK - THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO SUCH ACTION - THE WRIT PETITION CANNOT SUCCEED ON THE MERITS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Class III employees of the Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta Branch, challenged the deduction of their salaries for the months of April to July and upto 14th August 1982, including the Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta Circular No. 5 dated 13.5.1982, which increased the quota of work for Note Examination and Verification Section by 15% with effect from 12.4.1982. They prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel and recall the concerned orders and to repay the salaries which were deducted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were piece-rated workers who were entitled to remuneration in respect of service performed during the month under the contractual Regulation 58 of the Staff Regulations. The court also found that the bank was entitled to increase their quota of work by 15% under the Dighe Award, which was not challenged before it. The court further found that the petitioners did not perform the increased quota to any extent and that their excuse that it was impossible for them to do so without elimination of pattern wise sorting was a lame excuse to cover up their imitational activity. The court held that the bank was justified in not paying remuneration of the concerned petitioners on pro rata basis for not doing the increased quota of work.
Issues: 1. Whether the bank was justified in deducting the salaries of the petitioners for non-performance of the increased quota of work? 2. Whether the Dighe Award was valid? 3. Whether the principle of "no work no pay" applied to the petitioners? 4. Whether the rules of natural justice were attracted to the bank's action? 5. Whether the contractual regulations governed the relationship between the bank and the petitioners? 6. Whether the writ jurisdiction could be invoked in the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the bank was justified in not paying remuneration of the concerned petitioners on pro rata basis for not doing the increased quota of work, as they were piece-rated workers who were entitled to remuneration in respect of service performed during the month under the contractual Regulation 58 of the Staff Regulations. 2. The court did not consider the validity of the Dighe Award, as it was not challenged before it. 3. The court held that the principle of "no work no pay" applied to the petitioners, as they were piece-rated workers who were entitled to remuneration in respect of service performed during the month. 4. The court held that the rules of natural justice were not attracted to the bank's action, as it was a contractual action and not a statutory action. 5. The court held that the contractual regulations governed the relationship between the bank and the petitioners, as the Staff Regulations were purely contractual. 6. The court held that the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked in the present case, as the bank's action was a contractual action and not a statutory action.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) IN this Writ petition 78 Class III employees of the Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta Branch and the Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta Branch and the Reserve Bank of India Staff Association, Calcutta, the Trade Union of which they belonged have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel and recall the concerned orders relating to th4 deduction of salaries of the petitioners for the months of April to July and upto 14the August 1982 including the Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta Circular No. 5 dated 13. 5. 1982 which is annexure 'f' to the petitioner and further directing them to repay the salaries which were deducted. The respondent Nos 1 to 6 are the Reserve Bank of India and its officers (the respondent No. 7 being the Union of India) who have filed return to the writ petition.
( 2 ) THE background to the dispute may be briefly stated.
( 3 ) ON the 16th June 1979 the Central Government referred the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Reserve bank of India and their class III workmen in respect of matters including "work procedure and work norm" which is relevant for the present purpose, to a national industrial tribunal in Bombay presided over by Mr. Justice Chintaman Tukaram Dighe, a retired High Court Judge. The said tribunal made the Award dated 4. 12. 1981 commonly known as Dighe Award which was published on 16. 1. 82 and came into force on 16. 2. 82. On the question of quota of notes to be examined by the Class III workmen of the Note Examination and Verification Section of the Cash Department of the Reserve Bank it is stated in Dighe Award that he Reserve Bank is entitled to raise the quota of each category by 15% subject to their study in the position and making further changes by following the appropriate procedure. Thereafter on 1. 4. 82 the Reserve bank of India, Calcutta Branch (hereinafter called the Bank) issued an office order for increase in the quota of work by 15% in the Note Examination and Verification Section with effect from 12. 4. 82.
( 4 ) ON 6. 4. 82 the All India Reserve Bank Employees Association issued a Circular to all members to put up stiffest opposition and resistance to the managements aforesaid decision to increase the quota. On 8. 4. 82 the bank issued a circular stating inter alia the concerted absence from work or refusal to do the quota of work increased in pursuance of Dighe Award would subject the employers to disentitlement of salary besides disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter the Class III employees of the bank resorted to various acts of dislocation of work including strike for full day and stoppage of work for part of the day. In the issue dated 26. 4. 62 of the Calcutta. Edition of the Statesman the bank published a press hand-out (annexure "b") in which it was stated as follows: -"while the wage increase part of the Award has already been implemented effective from the operative dates as indicated in the Award, the bank decided the increase in the quota of work for Note Examination/verification by 15% be made effective from April 12, 1982. In quantitative terms, this increase involves examination in a day by each Note Examiner 115 packets each of 100 pieces of notes of lower denominations instead of 100 packets earlier. In the case of notes of higher denominations an Examiner's quota stands raised to 40/48 packets instead of 35/40 packets earlier. The learned Judge had heard the view points of all parties to the dispute. He had also taken note of the fact that since the earlier quota (of 100 or 35 to 40 packets ass the case may be) was last fixed in 1949 there had been a great deal of work simplifications as a result of elimination of pattern wise sorting and introduction of mechanical devises for stitching and punching of notes. While the learned judge was sissified that in the overall con text a rise in 25% in the quota of work would be justified he was prepared to make a margin for the mental attitude of the Exa
