Back
1990 Supreme(Ori) 389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.L. Hansaria, D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
TAICHER COAL MINES EMPLOYEES` UNION - APPELLANT
Versus
TAICHER COLLIERY AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 1309 of 1984
Decided On : 04-07-1990
P. Palit, J. Patnaik and A.K. Bhagat, for the Appellant; B.B. Ratho, R.K. Bhuyan, Manoj Misra, R.P. Mohapatra, R.K. Bose and A. Satpathy, for the Respondent
The authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to deductions from wages, including deductions made under the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Act, which allows for penal deductions for concerted absence without reasonable cause.
Headnote:
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 - SECTION 9(2) - DEDUCTION OF WAGES - PENAL DEDUCTION - CONDITIONS - NOTICE - PRIOR DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE CAUSE - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
Employees of Talcher Colliery were absent from duty for three days in protest against a change in their work schedule. The management issued a general notice describing the absence as an illegal strike and deducted 8 days' wages from the employees' salaries. The employees' union challenged the deduction on the grounds that it violated the principles of natural justice and that there was no prior determination as to whether the concerted absence was without reasonable cause.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the deduction was not in violation of the principles of natural justice, as a general notice of the deduction had been issued in accordance with the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956. The court also held that the deduction could be made without a prior determination of whether the concerted absence was without reasonable cause, as the jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes lay with the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Issues: 1. Whether the deduction of wages was in violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether a prior determination of whether the concerted absence was without reasonable cause was necessary before the deduction could be made?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the deduction was not in violation of the principles of natural justice, as a general notice of the deduction had been issued in accordance with the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956. The court relied on the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which allows for deductions from wages for absence from duty, and Rule 16(2)(c) of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956, which requires a general notice to be displayed before such deductions can be made. 2. The court held that a prior determination of whether the concerted absence was without reasonable cause was not necessary before the deduction could be made. The court relied on the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which gives the authority under the Act jurisdiction to hear and decide all claims arising out of deductions from wages.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the deduction of wages was not in violation of the principles of natural justice and that a prior determination of whether the concerted absence was without reasonable cause was not necessary.
JUDGMENT :
Hansaria, C.J. - Penal deduction of wages for a period of 8 days from certain category of employees of Talcher Colliery with the aid of the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (shortly stated, the Act), has been assailed in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution principally on two grounds, viz.:
(i) the deduction was in violation of the principles of natural justice; and
(ii) there being no prior determination as to whether the concerted absence was without reasonable cause, no deduction at all could be made.
2. To appreciate these submissions advanced by Shri Palit, the broad facts of the case may be noted. These are: The loaders of the Talcher Colliery were discharging their duties earlier from 7 A.M. to 3 P.M. which was called "day shift." Likewise, there were evening and night shifts from 3 P.M. to 11 P.M. and from 11 P.M to 7 A.M. of the next day. These hours were shifted on and from 23 April 1984, to 8 A.M. to 4 P.M., 4 P.M. to 12 P.M. and 12 P.M. to 8 AM of the next day. This change was not entertained by the loaders because of which they did not attend their duties on 23, 24 and 26 April 1984. The management, therefore, issued a general notice, vide Annexure 2, dated 29 April 1984, describing the absence from duty as illegal strike because of which it was stated that their emoluments for the month of April would be paid after deducting 8 days' wages. An industrial dispute in regard to the change in the condition of service was raised which came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal by a Notification, dated 4 August 1984. In the mean time, this petition had been filed by. the employees' union in which the deduction has been assailed on the grounds stated above.
3. To answer the two contentions advanced by Sri Palit, we may read Section 9 in its entirety:
"P. Deduction for absence from duty.-
(1) Deductions may be made under Clause(b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 only on account of the absence of an employed person from the place or places where, by the terms of his employment, he is required to work, such absence being for the whole or any part of the period during which he is so required to work.
(2) The amount of such deduction shall in no case bear to the wages payable to the employed person in respect of the wage period for which the deduction is made a larger proportion than the period for which he was absent bears to the total period, within such wages period, during which by the terms of his employment, he was required to work;
Provided that, subject to any rules made in this behalf by the State 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 persons 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.
Explanation. For the purposes of this section, an employed person shall be deemed to be absent from the place where he is required to work if, although present in such place, he refuses, in pursuance of a stay-in strike or for any other cause which is not reasonable in the circumstances, to carry out his work."
4. Let us now examine the merits of; the contentions. In so far as the first submission relating to violation of the principles of natural justice is concerned, reliance was placed on a Bench Decision of this Court in Orient Paper Mills Sramik Congress v. Orient Paper Mills (by Vice-President 1988 II L.L.N. 132, wherein the action of the management in deducting the wages u/s 9(2) of the Act had come up for examination. Though this Court was not directly concerned with the proviso to Section 9(2), yet it applied its mind to the said proviso and it observed in Para 6 that though the principles of natural justice would not be attracted in the case of normal or ordin
