Back
1981 I LLJ 64 Mad
S. Padmanabhan
V. Ganesan
Versus
The State Bank Of India And Ors.
Decided on: 21/11/1980
.
BANKS - EMPLOYEES - DEMONSTRATION - DEDUCTION OF SALARY - CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - BREACH OF CONTRACT - "NO WORK, NO PAY" PRINCIPLE - PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - TAMIL NADU SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - NATURAL JUSTICE - ARBITRATION CLAUSE - REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT - ACCEPTANCE OF REPUDIATION - DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT - AFFIRMATION OF CONTRACT - DAMAGES - REMEDIES FOR MISCONDUCT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - MINIMUM WAGES ACT - BI-PARTITE SETTLEMENT - GO-SLOW TACTICS - INDISCIPLINE - PENALTY - PROPERTY OF WORKMAN - DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
Fact of the Case:
Officers of the Central Bank of India staged a demonstration for 30 minutes during working hours on three different days to press their demands for bonus, wage revision, and other matters. The Bank proposed to deduct three days' salary from the officers' salaries for their absence during the demonstrations. The officers filed writ petitions challenging the Bank's action, contending that the Bank had no authority to deduct their salary for the period they had worked.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Banks are not entitled to deduct the salary of the petitioners for the period during which they had worked, even though they were absent for a part of the day. 2. The contract of employment is indivisible and cannot be divided into days, hours, or minutes. 3. In the absence of any statutory provision or any provision in the contract of employment authorizing the Banks to deduct one day's salary if an employee absents himself for a part of the day, the Banks will not have jurisdiction to deduct the salary for the period which he had worked for the day. 4. The Banks are entitled to deduct the pro rata salary of the petitioners for the period of their absence from duty.
Issues: 1. Whether the Banks are entitled to deduct the salary of the petitioners for the period during which they had worked, even though they were absent for a part of the day. 2. Whether the contract of employment is divisible and can be divided into days, hours, or minutes. 3. Whether there is any statutory provision or any provision in the contract of employment authorizing the Banks to deduct one day's salary if an employee absents himself for a part of the day. 4. Whether the Banks are entitled to deduct the pro rata salary of the petitioners for the period of their absence from duty.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to get salary is a right to property, which cannot be arbitrarily withheld by the Banks. 2. The contract of employment is indivisible and cannot be divided into days, hours, or minutes. 3. In the absence of any statutory provision or any provision in the contract of employment authorizing the Banks to deduct one day's salary if an employee absents himself for a part of the day, the Banks will not have jurisdiction to deduct the salary for the period which he had worked for the day. 4. The Banks are entitled to deduct the pro rata salary of the petitioners for the period of their absence from duty.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions are allowed, but under the circumstances without costs.
S. Padmanabhan, J.
1. These writ petitions raise common questions for determination. In W.P. Nos. 757 & 758 of 1980, there are some special features which will be dealt with separately. It will be convenient to deal with the facts in W.P. 4386 of 1977. The petitioner is an officer working as sub-accountant in the China Bazaar Branch of the Central Bank of India Limited. The majority of the officers of the Bank as well the other staff who are styled as the Award staff are all members of the All India Central Bank Employees' Federation. The said Federation is affiliated to All India Bank Employees Association. Pursuant to the call given by the All India Central Bank Employees' Federation, the officers and award staff staged a demonstration for a duration of 30 minutes during working hours on the morning of 11-10-1977. There was a similar demonstration for 30 minutes on 17-10-1977 and for an hour on 19-11-1977. The demonstrations were held for the purpose of pressing their demands for bonus, wage revision and other matters. On account of these demonstrations the officers including the petitioner and the award staff could not attend to their work during the period of demonstration. Even prior to the demonstration the first respondent bank had issued circulars that in the event of the officer participating in any demonstration programme launched by the workmen-union/officers-association, a full day's wages of the concerned officers would be deducted irrespective of the duration of the demonstration. Pursuant to the circular, the second respondent the Asst. General Manager of the Bank, proposed to deduct three days salary from salary of the officers, who were absent from duty during the period of demonstration on 11-10-1977, 17-10-1977 and 19-11-1977. The petitioner, therefore, filed this writ petition for the issue of a write of mandamus prohibiting the respondents from deducting three days' salary from the salary of the petitioner as proposed.
2. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that the first respondent-Bank is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. Section 34 of the said Act provides that the wages of the person employed shall be paid to him without any deduction except those authorised by and under the Act. Section 36 provides for deductions of salary for absence from duty in certain cases. In the affidavit reliance is also placed on Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Rules, 1948 which provides that no deduction for breach of contract shall be made from the wages of any employed person except in the circumstances mentioned in the rule. It is further claimed that the respondents have no power or authority to deduct the whole power part of the salary for the three days in question. The affidavit further states that in any event the respondents will be entitled to deduct only the proportionate salary for the period for which the officers were absent. It is further stated that in the case of award staff the respondents are making only pro rata deductions from their salary. In the circumstances, the proposed action of the respondents to deduct three days salary from the salary of the officers will be hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It states that on coming to know that there was going to be a demonstration by the officers and award staff of the Bank, the Deputy General manager of the Bank caused circulars to be issued notifying the officers and the award staff that if the officers participated in the proposed demonstrations their salary for the whole day would be cut irrespective to the time for which they absented themselves from work. The said circular was put on the notice board of the various branches of the Bank. The fact that there was a demonstration on 11-10-1977, 17-10-1977 and 10-11-1977 did not prevent any officer, if so minded to attend to his duty. It i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
