The Chief Justice.-This application arises out of a reference dated the 27th June, 1949, made by the workers of the Electro Mechanical Industries, Limited, in respect of certain disputes between themselves represented by the Workers’ Union and management. There were sixteen items of dispute and the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, after due inquiry made an award on the 5th November, 1949. The management seeks from this Court a writ of certiorari to quash the award in respect of two of the items of dispute.

The first item relates to the deduction of eight days’ wages from the employees as per the notice of the management, dated the 19th April, 1949. The workers claim a return of the wages deducted. The deduction was made by the management because of a strike by the workmen on the 18th April, 1949. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the strike was not legal and therefore the management was not wrong in punishing the men who went on strike. The provision which enables the management to make a deduction of wages in a case of this kind is contained in section 9 of the Payment of Wages Act. Sub-section (2)of that section contains the following proviso which is material:-

“Provided that, subject to any rules made in this behalf by the (Provincial Government), if ten or more employed persons acting in concert absent themselves without due notice (that is to say, without giving the notice which is required under the terms of their contracts of employment) and without reasonable cause, such deduction from any such person may include such amount not exceeding his wages for eight days as may by any such terms be due to the employer in lieu of due notice.”

The Tribunal having held that the management was entitled to punish the men who went on strike, however, considered that the cut of eight days’ wages was too severe a punishment and that justice would be met if a punishment of one day’s cut of wage and dearness allowance is imposed instead. He accordingly directed the difference to be refunded to the workers.

Mr. T. L. Venkatarama Iyer, learned counsel for the management, contended that the Tribunal, having held that the strike was not justified, had no jurisdiction to direct a refund of the pay for seven days. As the workers claimed the refund on the ground that the strike was justified, the only question which the Tribunal was called upon to decide was whether the strike was justified. If it was, there could be no deduction of wages. If it was not, then the deduction made by the management was justified. So his argument ran. He conceded that it was open to the Tribunal to decide the question as to the legality of the strike. In our opinion the Tribunal was competent to direct a refund of the wages for seven days. It is true that the workers demanded the return of the wages for the entire period of eight days. The management, on the other hand, claimed that the workers were not entitled to any refund at all. In these circumstances, as the dispute regarding the deduction was referred to the Tribunal for decision, it was open to it to hold that the wages for a less number of days than claimed by the workers should be returned,

Mr. Venkatarama Iyer next contended that though the Tribunal was competent to decide the question of the legality of the strike, the proper forum to decide any dispute as regards the deduction of the wages was not the Industrial Tribunal but the officer appointed by the Government under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. His contention was that the said Act provided for adequate remedy in respect of claims arising out of deduction from wages. Section 17 of that Act provided also an appeal against any direction which might be made under section 15 and section 22 prevented a Court from entertaining any suit for recovery of wages or of any deduction from wages. The Industrial Tribunal had therefore no jurisdiction to direct a return of the wages for any period. There appears to us to be considerable force in this con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document