SURENDER KUMAR Vs. P.O. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 10.02.2010 (Annexure P/5) of the Labour Court passed in Application No. 41 of 2001 filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "ID Act").

(2.) Petitioner while working as Technical-person of the respondent No. 2-company, during the month of February 2001 company deducted a sum of Rs. 1,266.43 from his monthly salary. Such deduction is on the allegation that petitioner while discharging the duty, he failed to complete the target of the job assigned to him, whereas petitioner's contention is that even though he was present for duty from 07.02.2001 to 10.02.2001 and 12.02.2001 to 15.02.2001, he was shown absent for duty. In this background, petitioner submitted application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act before the Labour Court that action of the respondent-company in deducting a sum of Rs. 1,266.43 from the pay is impermissible. The Labour Court after examining the pleadings of the petitioner as well as respondent framed two issues, namely, (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount claimed; and (ii) relief. The Labour Court proceeded to hold that application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act is not maintainable on the score that there is no pre-existing right or any legal right. Hence, present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has discharged the duties for the disputed period and it is not disputed. Further, if the deduction is with reference to in not completing the allotted job timely, in that event, respondent-company cannot proceed to deduct from salary to the extent of Rs. 1,266.43. It was further submitted that based on the evidence adduced before the Labour Court in para No. 9, it is evident that respondent-company cannot deduct any amount from his salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied reported decision - The Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 743 (Para Nos. 15 to 19), to substantiate his argument that application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act is maintainable having regard to the factual aspect of the present case.