PALI ELECTRICITY CO Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the Pali Electricity Co. Ltd. , under Article 226 of the constitution challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal in connection with a dispute between the applicant and one of its employees.

(2.) THE case of the applicant is briefly this. The applicant is supplying electric energy in the town of Pali. Nathuratn, opposite party No. 2 is a wireman in the employ of the applicant. There was an accident to Nathuram while he was working on behalf of the Company on 5-1-1957. As a result of that accident, Nathurarn was unable to work and remained in hospital from 5th January to 29th February 1957. During that period the applicant paid him Rs. 50 by way of gratuity. The applicant also advanced Rs. 75 to him and paid him the full wages for the month of January 1957. It appears that the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (No. 34 of 1948) was brought in force in this area on 1-12-1956. In consequence of that, the applicant had to make contributions under Section 22 of that Act. It also appears that as that Act had come into force, Nathuram was paid compensation under it. Consequently, the applicant started deducting what had been paid as advance and also the wages for the month of January from the salary of Nathuram after he rejoined. Thereupon Nathuram made an application under Section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act (No. 14 of 1947) hereinafter called the Act, to the industrial Tribunal which was then seized of a dispute between the applicant and its employees.

(3.) NATHURAM s complaint was that the applicant was not entitled to deduct what had been paid to him as he was entitled to full wages during the period he was disabled under the conditions of service prevailing in the applicant company. This application was opposed on behalf of the applicant and the first contention of the applicant was that the application did not lie under Section 33 A of the Act. An issue was framed in this connection by the Tribunal, which is issue No. 2, namely whether the deductions in respect of the complainant's wages for the months of january and February, 1957 made by the company amount to alteration of conditions of service in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that this was so and that it had therefore jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33 A of the Act. There were other points raised in the application, but we do not think it necessary to set them down as we are of opinion that the case can be determined on this preliminary question of jurisdiction.