V GANESAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions raise common questions for determination. In W. P. Nos. 757 and 758 of 1980, there are some special features which will be dealt with separately. It will be convenient to deal with the facts in W. P. 4386 of 1977. The petitioner is an officer working as sub-accountant in the China Bazaar Branch of the Central Bank of India Limited. The majority of the officers of the Bank as well the other staff who are styled as the Award staff are all members of the All India Central Bank Employees' Federation. The said Federation is affiliated to All India Bank Employees Association. Pursuant to the call given by the All India Central Bank Employees' Federation, the officers and award staff staged a demonstration for a duration of 30 minutes during working hours on the morning of 11-10-1977. There was a similar demonstration for 30 minutes on 17-10-1977 and for an hour on 1911-1977. The demonstrations were held for the purpose of pressing their demands for bonus, wage revision and other matters. On account of these demonstrations the officers including the petitioner and the award staff could not attend to their work during the period of demonstration. Even prior to the demonstration the first respondent bank had issued circulars that in the event of the officer participating in any demonstration programme launched by the workmenunion/ officers-association, a full day's wages of the concerned officers would be deducted irrespective of the duration of the demonstration. Pursuant to the circular, the second respondent the Asst. General Manager of the Bank, proposed to deduct three days salary from salary of the officers, who were absent from duty during the period of demonstration on 11-10-1977, 17-10-1977 and 19-11-1977. The petitioner, therefore, filed this writ petition for the issue of a write of mandamus prohibiting the respondents from deducting three days' salary from the salary of the petitioner as proposed.

(2.) THE affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that the first respondent-Bank is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. Section 34 of the said Act provides that the wages of the person employed shall be paid to him without any deduction except those authorised by and under the Act. Section 36 provides for deductions of salary for absence from duty in certain cases. In the affidavit reliance is also placed on Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Rules, 1948 which provides that no deduction for breach of contract shall be made from the wages of any employed person except in the circumstances mentioned in the rule. It is further claimed that the respondents have no power or authority to deduct the whole power part of the salary for the three days in question. The affidavit further states that in any event the respondents will be entitled to deduct only the proportionate salary for the period for which the officers were absent. It is further stated that in the case of award staff the respondents are making only pro rata deductions from their salary. In the circumstances, the proposed action of the respondents to deduct three days salary from the salary of the officers will be hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It states that on coming to know that there was going to be a demonstration by the officers and award staff of the Bank, the Deputy General manager of the Bank caused circulars to be issued notifying the officers and the award staff that if the officers participated in the proposed demonstrations their salary for the whole day would be cut irrespective to the time for which they absented themselves from work. The said circular was put on the notice board of the various branches of the Bank. The fact that there was a demonstration on 1110-1977, 17-10-1977 and 10-11-1977 did not prevent any officer, if so minded to attend to his duty. It is further pleaded that as per the terms of the contract of employment the petitioner has to perform the work for the whole day and earn his salary. The contract of work is not divisible so as to enable the officers at their free will to stay away from work for a few hours on a day and claim salary on a pro rata basis. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not fulfill his part of the contract, the respondents are not bound to pay the salary of the petitioner for the three days in question. If further made clear in the affidavit that the case of the petitioner that the respondents are deducting three days salary from the salary of the petitioner is not correct. On the other hand, the respondents are not paying the salary for the three days in question by reason of the fact that the petitioner did not work for the full day on the three days. Having committed a breach of the contract of employment, the petitioner will not be entitled to claim salary for the period of his absence. The counter- affidavit also states that the Government of Tamil Nadu in the exercise of the powers conferred by S. 6 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 have exempted the Central Bank of India and other Banks from all but five sections of the said Act, the sections being 31, 41, 43, 50 and 51. Consequently, S. 36 of the Tamil Nadu shops and Establishments Act does not apply to the Bank.