SURENDRANATHAN NAIR Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER RLYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the legal battle between the Railway Administration and some of its employees the real issue is not the stake involved but establishment of rights. The employees are interested in getting established their unfettered right to avail of casual leave as they like on any day even for the purpose of launching an agitation against the Railway Administration under which they are working. The interest of the management is in preserving its rights to enforce discipline and ensure proper working of the Railways. So far as each of the employees is concerned, what he is gaining by success or losing by defeat is only a day's wages which may not be more than 50 or 55 rupees. They must have spent many multiples of that figure to fight out this case.

(2.) 28 employees of the Railway Administration are the revision petitioners. Against the management, the employees decided to have an agitation on 2-1-1979. On 30-12-1978 the petitioners submitted casual leave applications for 2-1-1979 to participate in the agitation. Those applications were rejected. Still they absented themselves from duty and participated in the agitation. Management withheld wages for the day. Petitioners complained before the Payment of Wages Authority under S.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act (for short 'the Act') and the claims were allowed. Against that order the Management filed an appeal under S.17(2) of the Act before the District Judge, Palghat. The appeal was allowed and the order set aside. Hence they have come up in revision.

(3.) S.15(1) of the Act provides for the appointment of an Authority to hear and decide all claims of employees arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages. S.15(2) authorises the employees to apply to the Authority for direction under sub-s. (3) only in cases where deduction has been made from wages contrary to the provisions of the Act or when payments were delayed. Under S.7(2)(b) of the Act, the Management has a legitimate right to make deductions from wages for absence from duty. If the deductions come under the authorisation in S.7(2)(b) the petitioners cannot have any right to move under S.15(2) for a direction under S.15(3). Therefore the real question is whether absence from duty is authorised or unauthorised.