D BALALAH Vs. SECRETARY INDIAN DETONATORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are employees of the respondent-Company. Their wages for 8 days were deducted from out of their wages for the month of April, 1970 by the respondent. Thereupon the petitioners filed a petition under Section 15(2) read with Section 16 of the PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 complaining that a sum of Rs. 640/- was illegally deducted from their wages without affording any opportunity to the applicants to explain against such deduction. They prayed for a refund of the said amount. In the counter to the petition, the respondent stated that the petitioners acting in concert and without reasonable cause staged an illegal tool down strike in the factory of the respondent on 20th April. 1970. The workers including the petitioners were notified that their wages for eight days would be deducted from the wages for April, 1970 according to the proviso to section 9(2) read with the Explanation thereto of the PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936. It was submitted that the deductions were in accordance with law. It was further contended that the question whether the deduction was illegal or not is one that cannot be gone into In an application under section 15 of the PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936.

(2.) The authority which was entitled to hear the. application under section 15(2) and which heard the application came to the conclusion that the cut of 8 days wages was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the applicants are not entitled to recover the same. It also negatived the contention that the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the deductions were legal or not. In the result, the application was dismissed.

(3.) The petitioners preferred an appeal to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 17 of the Act. The learned Chief Judge held on a consideration of the evidence that the petitioners had participated in a concerted strike on 20th April, 1970. He took the view that there was no need to give a notice to the petitioners before making the deductions as the Act did not provide for such a notice. It was contended before him that the deductions to be made under the Act were subject to the Rules made under the said Act and as there was no rule authorising the deduction of 8 days wages, the deduction was illegal. The learned Chief Judge observed that the rules only provide for deductions in the case of breach of contract and there was no other rule regarding deductions to be made in the case of absence from duty. He therefore came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to make the deduction of 8 days wages which was the maximum permlssable under the Act. In the result, he dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court. The revision being under section 115, C.P.O the petitioners are not entitled to canvass the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Chief Judge that the petitioners had participated in a concerted strike and had absented themselves from duty without any just cause. The learned Advocate for the petitioners therefore very properly contended himself by arguing two main questions of law. Firstly he contended that under Section 9(2) the employer may deduct an amount not exceeding his wages for 8 diys as may be due to the employee subject to any rules made in this behalf by the State Government.