Rahul (appellant) was working as a Clerk in a Nationalised Bank posted at MG Road Branch, Panipat. He joined the branch on 1st November, 2016 and was assigned the duties of cashier. As per appellant he attended the duty
CS Professional · Labour Laws and Practice · PYQS · June 2024
Rahul (appellant) was working as a Clerk in a Nationalised Bank posted at MG Road Branch, Panipat. He joined the branch on 1st November, 2016 and was assigned the duties of cashier. As per appellant he attended the duty on 10th and 11th November, 2018 and his attendance was marked on the muster roll for both days. But according to the Bank authorities the appellant absented from duties on both days without permission. The case of the Bank further was that the appellant on 10th November, 2018 entered the Bank with about 15 persons in the morning and went to the office of the Chief Manager and thereafter left the office. Again, on 11th November, 2018 he worked up to 2.30 pm and absented himself from duty thereafter. The bank deducted two days wages of appellant treating him absent from duty. As a reason of this, Appellant went on strike, later he provoked other bank employees as well and they all went on strike for first four hours on 13th November, 2018 without complying the notice period. Hence, the bank issued an administrative circular as per their Standing Orders, the employees cannot go on strike for first four hours, warning the employees that they would be committing a breach of their contract of service if they participate in the strike. By ignoring the order, they have participated in the strike from the beginning of the working hours on 13th November, 2018. The employees however, resumed work on that day after the strike hours and the bank did not prevent them from doing so. The bank had already made it clear in advance, that if they will go on strike for first four hours, they would not be entitled to the wages for the whole day and hence they need not report for work thereafter. On 16th November, 2018, the Bank issued a circular directing the managers to deduct the full day's wages of those employees who had participated in the strike. The employees requested to the Chief Manager not to make deduction from wages, but the bank deducted their wages, hence the employees referred the matter to the Labour Court. On the basis of above facts, answer the following questions: The Bank Authorities made the deduction of wages for full day's salary for 13th November, 2018 from the employees' salary, was it justified?
Answer & Explanation:
Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 allows deductions from the wages of an employee on the account of absence from duty. Further, a Section 9(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, provides for deductions for absence from duty. It states that the deductions may be made under clause (b) of sub section 7 only on account of the absence of an employed person from place or places where, by the terms of his employment, he is required to work, such absence being for the whole or any part of which he is required to work. In the case of Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1978 S.C. 1489, it was observed that for entitlement of wages for the strike period, the strike should be legal and justified. Supreme Court in Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala (1990 II LLJ S.C. 39) decided, that where employees are going on a strike for a portion of the day or for whole day and there was no provision in the contract of employment or service rules or regulations for deducting wages for the period for which the employees refused to work although work was offered to them, and such deduction is not covered by any other provision, employer is entitled to deduct wages proportionately for the period of absence or for the whole day depending upon the circumstances. It was justified on the part of bank authorities to deduct full day's wages for 13th November, 2018 from the employees' salary, as the strike was illegal and not justified. On 13th November, 2018 the employees were absent from duty for the first essential four hours and they went on strike even after warned by the bank, as they will not be entitled to the wages for the whole day even the pro rata salary for the hours of work that the employees remained in the Bank premises without doing any work.
Topics: Payment of Wages Act, 1936
Related Questions in this Topic
- MN Ltd., a logistics company conducting delivery operations across multiple states, employs nearly 500 delivery personne...
- Enumerate any 10 salient features of the Occupational, Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020.
- What are the compliances to be made by the Employer under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohi...
- In the case concerning Manjeet Singh and Indraprastha Gas Limited in the Delhi High Court, the controversy emerged withi...
- In the case concerning Manjeet Singh and Indraprastha Gas Limited in the Delhi High Court, the controversy emerged withi...