(1.) THE short question involved in this writ petition is whether an employer can deduct wages of a workman on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in (Bank of India v. T. S. Kelawala and others), reported in 1990 C. L. R. (S. C.)748 for the reason that the workman has not performed his part of the contract by working although he was present on duty.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-
(3.) THE allegation in the complaint was that the work which was allotted to the workman was on a seniority and priority basis i. e. works which were to be conducted in the Varnish Department were to be allotted on Seniority basis. According to the respondent, the work performed in the Varnish Department was : (i) Stenciling of drums and barrels; (ii) Filtration of alkyd and MF resins; (iii) Making of saleable varnish and filling of the same in required containers; (iv) Making and filling of thinners; (v) Making varnishes in tank and circulation of the same for the adjustment of constants; and (vi) Premarking of containers and cartons. According to the union, the workmen were allotted the work of premarking, making and filling of containers on seniority basis i. e. premarking was to be done by the senior most skilled workman in the Varnish Department while filling of container by the juniormost. It appears that on 3rd August, 1993, the concerned workman was directed to fill a one litre pouch by his superior and he refused to do so on the ground that the work of making was allotted to his junior Shankar Bhairu. The contention of the union in the complaint was that the petitioner had settled with them this allotment of duty on seniority-cum-priority basis and therefore there was no reason why the petitioner company should have effected deduction of wages from the wages of the said workman. The Union claimed that this deduction was contrary to law and amounts to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act.