Back
2002 Supreme(Guj) 612
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :RAVI R.TRIPATHI
UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT BANK WORKERS UNION - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 429 of 1981
Decided On : 08/20/2002
Headnote:
Payment of Wages Act -Appeal are as under : twenty Three employees, who are represented through the respondent no. 1-union, abstained from work in protest against the attitude of the Bank regarding their various demands. Thereafter, they attended the work, but the employer-Bank did not assign work to them between this period .abstain from working was a part of demonstration in support of the workers rights and demands. The Bank deducted the wages for the whole day from the salary of the concerned workman. Being aggrieved by this action of the Bank, the 23 employees, who were represented by Bank Workers Union, through its Secretary, presented an application, being Payment of Wages Application No. 14 of 1978 under the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. It was contended that as a part of demonstration, the employees abstained from work and subsequently attended the work . and, therefore, the Bank was not entitled to deduct the salary for the whole day particularly when the employees had worked for three hours. ) IT is clear from the record that averments made in the application to the effect that and subsequently attended the work when they had worked for three hours", are not reflecting the correct position because as it is the case of the Bank that it had issued a notice to the employees, which is at Exh. 24, wherein it is stated that, `if any employee of the bank does not report for work or does not work for any part of his working hours, it will be in the breach of his service contract and will not earn salary for that and subsequently need not report for the work for rest of the day. It is also on record that the Bank had issued a public notice in the `indian Express also, a photocopy of which was produced in the proceedings before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act -Held Advocate submitted that the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court was approved by the Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter reported at (1994) 5 SCC 572, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under :"as in the case, in the cases of C. A. Nos. 2689-92 of 1989 also, the question whether the strike was justified or not was not raised. No argument has also been advanced on behalf of the employees on the said issue. In the circumstances, the law laid down will be applicable. The wages of the employees for the whole day in question i. e 29-12-1977 are liable to be deducted Second Appeal is allowed. The judgement and order dated 10th November, 1981 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Rajkot in Civil Appeal Nos. 56 of 1980 and 78 of 1980 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent it dismisses Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1980. Resultantly, the Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1980 stands allowed. The judgement and order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act in P. W. Application No. 14/1978 stands quashed and set aside. The action of the appellant-Bank in deducting the whole days salary stands. No order as to costs -Appeal is Allowed.
( 1 ) THE present Second Appeal arises from the judgement and order dated 10/11/1981 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Rajkot in Civil Appeal Nos. 56 of 1980 and 78 of 1981 whereby both these appeals were dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) THE Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1980 was filed by Gujarat Bank Workers Union while Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1981 was filed by the United Commercial Bank. These two appeals arose out of one and same judgement dated 31st December, 1979 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Rajkot District, in P. W. Application No. 14 of 1978, whereby the United Commercial Bank, having its head office at Calcutta and its branch office at Rajkot, is directed to pay to the employees the sum mentioned in the order.
( 3 ) THE facts leading to the present Second Appeal are as under : twenty Three employees, who are represented through the respondent no. 1-union, abstained from work between 10. 45 a. m. to 2. 45 p. m. on 29/12/1977 in protest against the attitude of the Bank regarding their various demands. Thereafter, they attended the work from 2. 45 p. m. to 5. 45 p. m. , but the employer-Bank did not assign work to them between this period i. e. during 2. 45 p. m. to 5. 45 p. m. This abstain from working was a part of demonstration in support of the workers rights and demands. The Bank deducted the wages for the whole day of 29/12/1997 from the salary of the concerned workman. Being aggrieved by this action of the Bank, the 23 employees, who were represented by Bank Workers Union, through its Secretary, K. P. Antani, presented an application, being Payment of Wages Application No. 14 of 1978 under the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. It was contended that as a part of demonstration, the employees abstained from work from 10. 45 a. m. to 2. 45 p. m. and subsequently attended the work from 2. 45 p. m. to 5. 45 p. m. and, therefore, the Bank was not entitled to deduct the salary for the whole day particularly when the employees had worked for three hours.
( 4 ) IT is clear from the record that averments made in the application to the effect that, ". . . and subsequently attended the work from 2. 45 p. m. to 5. 45 p. m. . . . " ". . . when they had worked for three hours", are not reflecting the correct position because as it is the case of the Bank that it had issued a notice dated 27/12/1977 to the employees, which is at Exh. 24, wherein it is stated that, `if any employee of the bank does not report for work or does not work for any part of his working hours, it will be in the breach of his service contract and will not earn salary for that and subsequently need not report for the work for rest of the day. It is also on record that the Bank had issued a public notice in the `indian Express dated 29/12/197 also, a photocopy of which was produced in the proceedings before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Rajkot.
( 5 ) IT is the case of the Bank employees that, the Bank was not entitled to deduct their whole days salary by way of punishment and that this deduction was illegal and Bank was bound to refund it, on the basis that the Bank was entitled to deduct half day salary only of the Bank employees.
( 6 ) MR. MAHAPATRA for M/s. Nanavati and Nanavati, learned Advocate for the appellants, submitted that this, being a Second Appeal, he would like to first address the Court on the point of its maintainability. He relied upon a judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter between Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Ors. , reported at (1999) 3 SCC 722. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgement, the present Second Appeal is maintainable and the same is required to be entertained though the stake in the present Second Appeal, valued in terms of money, comes to only Rs. 685=00. He submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:"second Appeal is required to be entertained in
