S GANAPATHY Vs. AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to appeal granted.

(2.) The question which falls for determination in these appeals is whether in computing the amount of one month's wages, to be paid under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') the employer is justified in reducing the amount by statutory tax deductions

(3.) The three appellants herein, in the period 1979-80 were in the employment of the respondent-Air India, and stationed at Calcutta. They individually suffered disciplinary proceedings on the charges of some misconducts and having been found guilty were awarded penalties of removal or dismissal by the Air India, as due to each. It is common ground that the respondent-Air India, statutorily bound, applied to the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay by means of separate approval applications under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act to have its action approved. In terms of the said provision it paid to the appellants one month's salary or wages, reducing it by a sum of Rs. 10/- or 15/-, as deductible on account of monthly payment of tax on employment, imposed on salary and wage earners, under the provisions of the West Bengal State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1979 (hereafter referred to as 'the Tax Act'). The approval sought by the respondent-management was opposed by the appellants before the Tribunal, and, though initially not part of the defence taken in the written statement, defence was later set up by them that they had not been paid wages in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, as there was short payment. This put the respondent-management to alert and it laid before the Tribunal account which had gone on to work out the month's wages. It is common ground that the payment otherwise was proper but since it was short by 10 or 15 rupees, as respectively due on account of tax payable under the Tax Act, the payment was termed as invalid. The Tribunal sustaining the objection rejected the approval applications on that score alone and not on merits. In separate writ petitions by the respondents, the Bombay High Court interfered in the matter taking the view that the Tribunal was in error in refusing approval on the ground of the suggested short payment and hence breach of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The matter could not be finalised by the learned single Judge and remand to the Tribunal was made for decision on merits. Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the respective appellants were dismissed by a division bench of the Bombay High Court affirming the view of the learned single Judge. That is why the instant appeals.