SUGUNARAJ C T Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the staff members of the Erode Branch of the Syndicate Bank which is a nationalised bank and is a creature of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1971. It is not disputed that the petitioners were absenting themselves for about 15 minutes every day between the dates July 2, 1981 and July 14, 1981 excepting the holidays. The petitioners, however, stated that they had attended office on all these days except for the short duration mentioned above. The respondents issued a show-cause notice by referring to the Circulars dated April 24, 1981 and July 1, 1981 directing that no employee shall leave his or her seat during the office hours without the permission of the concerned officer and calling upon the petitioners to submit their explanation as to why the full day's wages should not be deducted. The notice was affixed in the Staff Notice Board with a direction that it shall be treated as individual intimation. There was no explanation on behalf of the petitioners to the said show-cause notice. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have come forward with this writ petition seeking the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear from deducting full day's wage for the days July 2, to July 4, July 6 to July 10 and again July 13 and July 14, 1981 from the salaries payable to the petitioners.

(2.) THE respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. The case of the respondent is that the petitioners were absenting themselves as a group solely with a view to disrupt the normal working of the bank. The public at large had been put to inconvenience and the Manager was subjected to embarrassment while facing the indignation of the public. The respondents had issued circulars clearly informing the employees that unauthorised absence will email deduction of the full day's wages, in spite of such warnings, the petitioners did absent themselves for a short duration every day and they did so as a group, thus causing hardship and prejudice to the bank. The bank therefore says that they are entitled to deduct the full day's wages. The bank made it clear to the employees both orally and in writing that after their unauthorised absence, they need not report back to duty for the rest of the day. If the employees have chosen to resume their seats, it is on their own accord and not at the instance of the management.

(3.) THE short question that arises for consideration is whether under the circumstances, the respondents can deduct the wages and if so whether it should be pro rata for the duration of the absence or whether it can be for the full day.