The Payment of Wages Authority lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on strike legality unless deductions from wages contravene specific provisions of the Act.

1. On 4-6-1964 the workers of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, through the General Secretary, The Visakhapatnam Harbour and Port Workers' Union, issued a notice to the Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, informing him that if the demands listed in the annexure to the notice were not settled, the workers would be compelled to go on strike. The workers complained that the administration was indifferent to their grievances and was not taking any steps to have them settled by negotiation though the workers were prepared for a settlement by negotiation. Pursuant to the notice the workers went on strike from 8-7-1964 to 12-7-1964. On 13-7-1964, a settlement was reached between the Port Trust authorities and the Union of workmen which was recorded by the Conciliation Officer. The Chairman of the Port Trust agreed that the demands of the workers should be referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Union agreed to call off strike. Clause 4 of the terms of settlement reads as follows : -
"The Chairman is agreeable to treat the period of strike and any further time taken by the workers to join duty as 'dies non'. If the Union President is not agreeable to this he is free to raise this matter as a separate industrial dispute to be settled under Industrial Disputes Act but he should not resort to any direct action on this issue. In case he raises this as a separate Industrial dispute till the matter is settled the Union President is agreeable to treat this period as dies non". It is clear that there was no agreement between the parties as to whether the workers would be entitled to wages for the period of strike. The matter was left to be decided in appropriate proceedings. After making an unsuccessful effort to have the matter referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, three of the workers filed applications under S.15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority constituted under that Act. The Port Trust Authorities contended that the workers were admittedly absent from duty on those dates and therefore deduction of wages for that period was valid and legal. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act held that the strike was justified and that it was forced upon the workers because of the attitude of the management in not agreeing to a settlement by negotiation and therefore the workers has justifiable cause for absenting themselves from duty and the deduction from wages for the strike period was accordingly illegal. He granted the applications of the workers. The Port Trust authorities have filed these Writ Petitions seeking to have the orders of the Authority quashed.

2. The principal submission of Mr. Srinivasamurthi, learned Counsel for the Port Trust is that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon questions relating to the legality or reasonableness of a strike when the management is not attempting to penalise the workers in addition to deducting wages for the days of absence from duty.

3. S.7(1) prescribes that the wages of an employed person shall be paid to him without deduction of any kind except those authorised by or under the Act. S.7(2) enumerates the kinds of deductions that may be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Item (b) with which we are concerned is 'deductions for absence from duty'. S.8 to 13 prescribe the conditions subject to which the deductions permitted by S.7(2) may be made. In particular S.9(1) explains 'absence from duty' for the purposes of S.7 to mean only absence from the place where the employee is required to work under the contract of employment; S.9(2) provides that the amount of deduction that may be made for absence from d