CANARA BANK Vs. G M V NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 hereinafter referred to as "the respondent", filed an application on behalf of several employees of Canara Bank, which is the petitioner. Those employees were working in the branches of the petitioner-bank at Pune. The application was filed by the respondent under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, alleging illegal deduction of wages on the part of the petitioner and claiming recovery of the amount so illegally deducted.

(2.) CERTAIN circumstances leading to the filing of the application ought to be necessarily stated. One employee of a branch of the petitioner-bank in Pune had been transferred to another branch. In order to protest against this transfer, the employees of nearly 14 branches in Pune, acting in a concerted manner and in combination of other employees and with the common intention, says the petitioner, disrupted the working of the said branches by resorting to flash strikes, lasting for a definite period of time each day from 2nd to 6th of April 1979. The petitioner took action against several employees for thus resorting to strike for a definite period of time on each of those days by deducting the salary for the whole day instead of the salary for the period for which actually the work was struck. It was against this action of the petitioner, which was characterised as illegal, and in order to recover the balance of the salary, that the respondent filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as mentioned above.

(3.) AT this stage, it must also be mentioned that prior to this strike, which took place in March of april 1979, there was one notice, which was issued by the branch offices of the petitioner-bank and in particular the branch offices at Pune. This notice is dated 30th of December 1978. It was mentioned in the said notice that in supersession of all prior notices on the subject, certain new proposals were going to be implemented. All the employees of the bank were reminded that their contract of service and the nature of their duties enjoined upon them, among others to do a full day's work and to complete each day's normal work. They were also reminded that they were put on notice that if any of them was unauthorisedly absent even for a part of the day during the working hours fixed for him by the management, he would be in breach of his contract of service and as a result would not; be entitled to that particular day's pay and allowances. In other words, if an employee remained absent for a part of the day, his salary for the whole day would be denied to him. It was pursuant to this notice that presumably the petitioner denied the full day's wages to all those employees who had struck work for parts of the days mentioned above.