Back
1993 Supreme(Ori) 218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Mohapatra, J.
SAMBUNATH BATTACHARJEE - APPELLANT
Versus
ORIENT PAPER MILLS - RESPONDENT
C.R. Nos. 299 and 305 of 1991
Decided On : 30-08-1993
S.K. Swain, for the Appellant; K.K. Jena and G.B. Jena, for the Respondent
The authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has jurisdiction to decide whether the deduction from salary of the employees who were absent was contrary to the provisions of the Act, notwithstanding the pendency of a reference before the Industrial Tribunal.
Headnote:
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 - SECTION 2(VI), 7(2)(B), 9, 15 - INTERPRETATION - DEDUCTION FROM WAGES - DELAY IN PAYMENT - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT - COMPENSATION - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an employee, was transferred from Brajrajnagar to Bhubaneswar. He did not join the new station and was informed that he would not be entitled to any salary from the date of the transfer order till he reported for duty at Bhubaneswar. He filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (the Act) claiming unpaid wages, bonus, and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the deduction of pay for the period between December 17, 1985, and December 19, 1985, was in contravention of the provisions of the Act as the petitioner was not absent from the place of work or refused to work during that period. The court also held that the deduction of pay for the period between December 20, 1985, and January 16, 1986, was not authorized as the petitioner had not been given a specific time to join the new station. The court further held that the authority under the Act had jurisdiction to decide whether the deduction from salary of the employees who were absent was contrary to the provisions of the Act, notwithstanding the pendency of a reference before the Industrial Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the authority under the Act can give the reliefs prayed for? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances petitioner is entitled to any relief?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the authority under the Act can give the reliefs prayed for, including bonus, salary for the period of absence from duty, and compensation. 2. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to payment of salary for the period between December 17, 1985, and January 16, 1986, and compensation for the period between December 17, 1985, and December 19, 1985.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisions in part and directed the opposite party to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period between December 17, 1985, and January 16, 1986, and compensation equal to the wages for the period between December 17, 1985, and December 19, 1985.
JUDGMENT :
S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Common appellate order in two appeals u/s 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') one by the employee and the other by the employer resulting in dismissal of the application u/s 15 of the Act claiming unpaid wages and bonus, is grievance of the employee in these two revisions.
2. Undisputed facts at this stage are that petitioner was appointed as a Typist in office of the opposite party at Brajrajnagar. On December 17, 1985 an office order was issued transferring petitioner to Bhubaneswar office, which petitioner received on December 19, 1985. It was stated in the office order that petitioner was transferred with immediate effect and he was to report to Chief Resident Officer at Bhubaneswar who would allocate work to petitioner. When petitioner did not join till January 16, 1986, he was communicated that day that non-compliance of the order amounts to wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful orders. His entry into the factory premises amounts to unauthorised entry. His gossiping in the type section causes dislocation of work. Despite caution, he was signing the attendance register unauthorisedly. He was intimated that he would not be entitled to any salary from December 17, 1985 till he reports to duty at Bhubaneswar The petitioner was directed to report at Bhubaneswar within three days of receipt of the letter. Petitioner was prohibited from entering into the factory premises without specific permission. Receiving letter petitioner intimated that he has challenged the order in Court of Munsif and he should be allowed to work at Brajrajnagar till a final decision. He requested to pay his salary from Brajrajnagar. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed application u/s 15 of the Act for salary from December 17, 1985, bonus for 1985-86 and compensation. During pendency of the application suit was dismissed and appeal against the decree was also dismissed later.
3. It is now settled in the decision reported in ILR (1910) Cut 587 Rameswar Lal v. Somendra Das 36 (1970) CLT 260 District Transport Manager, State Transport v. Satrughnan Guru and 73 (1992) CLT 165 (Gopabandhu Pati v. Executive Engineer, Orissa State Electricity Board, Bhadrak Electrical Division that revision lies against appellate order u/s 17 of the Act Thus, these two revisions are entertainable. Decision reported in Labangalata Dei Vs. Sk. Azizullah, was distinguished in ILR (1970) Cut. 587 (supra) since the revision was against the order of authority u/s 15 and not u/s 17 of the Act.
4. Question for consideration is whether authority u/s 15(1) of the Act can give the reliefs prayed for and whether on the facts and circumstances petitioner is entitled to any relief. For this purpose the relief prayed for can be classified as under:
(i) Bonus for the year 1985-86;
(ii) Salary for the period December 17, 1985 to December 19, 1985 ;
(iii) Salary for the period December 20, 1985 to January 16, 1985;
(iv) Salary for the period after January 16, 1985;
(v) Compensation.
5. Wide definition of the term 'wages' in Section 2(vi) of the Act would include bonus as well, since it is remuneration whether by way of salary, allowance or otherwise expressed in terms of money. Therefore, an employee can claim for bonus which has not been paid. In the present case, O.P.W. 1 stated that bonus was sent to petitioner who did not receive it. Accordingly there being no objection of the employer, bonus amount may be sent again to petitioner. If this time he refused to receive, he shall not be entitled to recover the same under the Act.
6. As regards non-payment of salary from December 17, 1985, question is whether it amounts to deduction or delayed payment of wages. Petitioner is employed on terms of payment of wages monthly. Unless terms of contract or conditions of service provide for non-payment of wages proportionately under circumstances indicated therein, he is entitled to his wages for the month at the end of the
