In cases involving deductions from wages under the Payment of Wages Act, strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder is required. Substantial compliance is not sufficient.

1. The above revision has been preferred as against the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (Additional District Judge of Tirunelveli) in C.M.A. Nos. 5/89 to 37/89 dated 30.9.1993.

2. It is necessary to state the following facts of this case. The petitioner herein is a public utility service, engaged in the manufacture of cement The Cement and Quarry Workers Union, of which the respondents are members had issued a strike notice on 20.1.1987, intimating that the said Union proposed to strike work on 5.2.87. A Copy of this notice was sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli alongwith other persons. The Labour Officer, Tirunelveli initiated Conciliation proceedings and called upon the petitioner and the respondents before him on 27.1.1987. It was contended before the Labour Officer that the Cement and Quarry Workers Union of which the respondent is a member has no representative capacity. Moreover, it is further pointed out that the wages and other service conditions in the Cement Industries are decided at All India level. It was further pointed out that so far as this dispute is concerned, the reference will be made only to the arbitrator and that there was no necessity to go on strike. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ernakulam also initiated conciliation proceedings and informed the parties that he would hold talks on 4.2.87. The management attended the meeting, but the Union did not. The petitioner herein raised the contention which was raised before the Labour Officer. It was further pointed out that the strike on 5.2.87 was illegal and unjustified, since the conciliatory proceedings were pending. The management also put up a notice as per Section-9 of the Payment of Wages Act. Notice was served on each and everyone of the employees and it was clearly pointed out in the notice that their absence in concert is a violation under the Payment of Wages Act and that the petitioner herein had proposed to deduct 8 days wage cut as provided for under the Payment of Wages Act. In their explanation to the above mentioned notice, the workmen confirmed that they went on strike as per the desire of the union and that the deduction of wages can be made only if the absence is not for a reasonable cause.

3. The petitioner herein, thereafter, by order dated 23.3.87 stated that the explanation given by the workmen on 27.2.87 to the notice given by the management on 11.2.87 is not satisfactory. It was further stated that the strike made by the workmen was illegal and unjustified and it is a violation of the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and consequently the management is entitled to deduct

8 days wage cut under Section-9(2)(viii) of the Payment of Wages Act. Accordingly, the management intimated that 8 days wage cut will be implemented. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the workmen preferred an application before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, claiming that the deduction made by the management is illegal and also claimed compensation for the illegal deduction. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act has held that the deduction made was illegal and also ordered compensation to an equivalent amount. The said Authority, in his order has observed that the strike was illegal, but, however, he has held that the management has not disclosed the details with regard to the amount of deduction and the manner which the same has been remitted in a specified notice as per Section 16(2)(c) of the Payment of Wages Act. He has further held that even though individual notices were sent to the workmen, the individual notice does not disclose the details as is required under Section 16(2)(c), and on that score, has allowed the application filed by all the 33 workers. Thus he has directed payment of Rs. 24,663.30 to all the workmen put together.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein preferred