S GHOSH Vs. DULIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Shri s. Ghosh, Mines Manager, Bikaner Gypsums Limited. Jamsar (Bikaner), challenging the validity of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner (North), acting as Payment of Wages Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, hereinafter to be referred as the "act, by which the Payment of Wages Authority directed the petitioner to pay the wages of Dulia and other workers which were found to have been deducted in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of together.

(2.) THE petitioner was the Mines Manager of the Bikaner Gypsums Limited at the mines of the Company at Jamsar. The Company is engaged in the mining of gypsum. The opposite party, who were workers employed at the mines, filed separate applications before the Payment of Wages Authority to the effect that for the wage period 2-10-63 to 30-9-64, the petitioner had wrongly deducted the wages on the basis of the Manager's letter No. J/a-13a/2571/16 dated 26-9-63, by which the annual increments of the workers were stopped for a year This action was taken by the petitioner in accordance with the Standing Orders of the company as a result of certain disciplinary proceedings taken against the workers. The workers were found guilty of certain misconduct in that they were found sleeping during duty hours The contention raised before the Payment of Wages authority by the workers was that, as the Standing Orders under which the order for deduction of wages was passed did not provide for an appeal as required by a government notification No. S. O. 391/pwa/sec. 7/ex. P. II/1960, published in the Government of India Gazette of 18-2-61, such a deduction was one in contravention of Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner resisted the application on the ground that, as the basis of the deduction had been an imposition of penalty of the withholding of the increment according to the Standing Orders the deduction was valid. The Payment, of Wages authority did not accept the submission made by the petitioner and held that, as the rules made by the petitioner did not provide for, an appeal, the deduction made from the wages of the workers was Illegal and unauthorised and consequently, according to the Payment of Wages Authority, the worker was entitled to the refund of the same. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the Payment of Wages Authority has considered the matter properly according to the tenor of Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act runs as under:

(3.) IN a very recent case reported as Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Kailash, 1965-1 Lab LJ 54: (AIR 1964 Guj. 205) the Gujarat High Court has also held that the service conditions prescribed by the certified standing orders amount to statutory service conditions binding on both the employers and the employees Since the contention whether the order passed by the petitioner against the workers was an order passed by "other authority competent to make such order within the meaning of sub-section 2 (h) of the Act, has not been dealt with by the Payment of Wages authority, we are inclined to think that the case has not been properly dealt with by the Payment of Wages Authority it will be for that Authority to consider whether the Mines Manager was equivalent to the term 'management within the meaning of rule 23 (b) of the Standing Orders On the material placed before us, we are for the present unable to say whether the Manager was the same Authority as the management within the meaning of this rule. Rule 37 of the Standing Orders gives an indication that the Company has Managing Agents and a Mines Superintendent. It will be for the Payment of Wages Authority to probe the matter and then see as to whether the Mines Manager was the same thing as the Management within the meaning of the Standing Orders so that any action taken by him could be taken to be that of a competent authority within the meaning of Section 7 (2) (h) of the act.