Back
1994 Supreme(Guj) 388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
A.P. Ravani, M.S. Parikh, JJ.
Shri S.U. Patel and others – Petitioners
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India and others – Respondents
Spl Civil Appln. No. 4772 of 1981
Decided On : 25-03-1994
For the Petitioner:J.G. Shah, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M.B. Buch for K.S. Nanavati, Advocates, H.M. Mehta, Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel with J. D. Ajmera, Central Govt. Standing Counsel.
The principles of natural justice are implied in the provisions of a rule or regulation unless expressly or necessarily excluded.
Headnote:
NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES - APPLICABILITY - LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (STAFF) REGULATIONS, 1960 - REGULATION 30(2) - ABSENCE FROM DUTY WITHOUT LEAVE - DEDUCTION OF WAGES - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, employees of LIC, participated in a dharna programme organised by the LIC Employees Union. They submitted leave applications in advance, which were neither rejected nor granted. The Corporation treated their absence as extraordinary leave on loss of pay and deducted wages. Petitioners challenged the deduction, contending that they were not given an opportunity to be heard before the deduction.
Finding of the Court:
1. The action of the Corporation in deducting wages without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners violated the principles of natural justice. 2. The absence of a specific provision in Regulation 30(2) of the LIC (Staff) Regulations, 1960, requiring a hearing before deduction of wages does not dispense with the observance of natural justice principles. 3. The principles of natural justice are implied in the provisions of the regulations unless expressly or necessarily excluded. 4. The contention that holding an inquiry in cases of mass misconduct would frustrate the purpose of the inquiry is not applicable in the present case, where only a few employees participated in the dharna.
Issues: 1. Whether the Corporation was justified in deducting wages from the petitioners' salaries without providing them an opportunity to be heard? 2. Whether the absence of a specific provision in Regulation 30(2) of the LIC (Staff) Regulations, 1960, requiring a hearing before deduction of wages dispenses with the observance of natural justice principles?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principles of natural justice are fundamental to fair play and require that a person affected by a decision be given an opportunity to be heard before the decision is made. 2. The absence of a specific provision in a rule or regulation requiring a hearing does not mean that the principles of natural justice are excluded. 3. In the present case, the petitioners were not given an opportunity to be heard before the Corporation deducted their wages. This violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the deduction illegal.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The Corporation's action in deducting wages from the petitioners' salaries without providing them an opportunity to be heard was quashed and set aside. The Corporation was directed to refund the deducted amount to the petitioners with interest at 18% per annum.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners are employees of respondent No. 1 Life Insurance Corporation of India. At the relevant time they were working as Assistants in the clerical staff. By this petition they challenge the legality and validity of the decision of respondent No. 1 Corporation deducting from the salaries of the petitioners amount for the days of their absence from duty for which they had applied for leave.
2. Necessary facts for deciding the question raised in the petition are as follows :
Petitioners had proceeded on leave in the month of August, 1977 for participating in a dharna programme organised by the LIC Employees Union, Ahmedabad Division, Ahmedabad. Certain disputes were not resolved. Therefore, the Union of employees gave a call to its members to organise a "dharna" programme to press the demand which the Union had placed before the Management of the Corporation. In compliance with the call given by the Union the petitioners submitted application for obtaining leave. It was submitted in the office of the Corporation at Ahmedabad. Details of the leave applied for and the amount of wages deducted are given in Annexure-A to the petition. Relevant part of the same is reproduced hereinbelow :
| S. No. | Name of employee | S.R. No. | Date of Dharna | Amount deducted |
| 1. | S.U. Patel | 410984 | 11.8.1977 | 25.53 |
| 2. | P.H. Adhvaryu* | 410164 | 11.8.1977 | 40.82 |
| 3. | K.M. Rami | 410954 | 11.8.1977 | 75.62 |
|
|
|
| 24-8-1977 |
|
| 4. | M.R. Parmar | 427261 | 12.8.1977 | 23.02 |
| 5. | P.N. Vachhani | 427154 | 12.8.1977 | 33.91 |
| 6. | B.M. Shah* | 410473 | 19.8.1977 | 27.86 |
| 7. | R.K. Chauhan | 426352 | 19.8.1977 | 26.10 |
| 8. | I.M. Patel | 410208 | 28.8.1977 | 39.51 |
| 9. | B.N. Sanghvi | 427260 | 22.8.1977 | 23.03 |
| 10. | G.C. Mehta | 427647 | 22.8.1977 | 31.35 |
| 11. | M.P. Shah | 410283 | 22.8.1977 | 49.75 |
| 12. | M.G. Rawal | 427751 | 23.8.1977 | 21.79 |
| 13. | G.K. Parmar | 410564 | 23.8.1977 | 36.27 |
| 14. | P.R. Modi | 427176 | 23.8.1977 | 24.80 |
| 15. | J.V. Pansara | 426460 | 23.8.1977 | 26.97 |
| 16. | R.P. Parmar | 471002 | 24.8.1977 | 25.04 |
| 17. | S.B. Mehta | 406494 | 24.8.1977 | 49.59 |
| 18. | N.L. Parmar | 426445 | 24.8.1977 | 17.67 |
| 19. | Smt. T.P. Gajjar | 410613 | 24.8.1977 | 39.99 |
| 20. | S.R. Desai | 410613 | 24.8.1977 | 36.27 |
| 21. | Kum. P.A. Shah | 428183 | 24.8.1977 | 27.68 |
| 22. | Smt. B.K. Parikh | 410693 | 24.8.1977 | 36.27 |
| 23. | Kum. V.N. Bhatt | 427138 | 24.8.1977 | 32.44 |
|
| *deleted from the petition | |||
It is an undisputed position that report of leave was submitted on previous day of the day of programme of "dharna." After submission of the leave report, they remained absent in order to participate in "dharna". The Corporation treated the absence as extraordinary leave on loss of pay and therefore deducted the amount of wages and other amounts as per details mentioned hereinabove.
3. The petitioner had initially tried to raise industrial dispute by requesting the appropriate Government to refer the dispute to proper forum. However, by letter dated July 21,1978 the Government of India refused to refer the dispute on the ground that refusal by the Management of Corporation to grant privilege leave to certain employees for participating in dharna did not amount to change in condition of service so as to attract the provisions of S. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The action of the Management did not seem to be illegal or unjustified and, therefore the Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication.
4. Thereafter the petitioner submitted application under S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court and sought appropriate order for recovery of the amount in question. Therein the respondent-Corporation appeared a
