In furtherance of certain demands for wage revision made by the employees, in September 2022, the employees struck work for 4 hours on 29th December, 2022. On 16th January, 2023 the Bank issued a circular to its managers

In furtherance of certain demands for wage revision made by the employees, in September 2022, the employees struck work for 4 hours on 29th December, 2022. On 16th January, 2023 the Bank issued a circular to its managers and agents directing them to deduct full day's wages of such employees who participated in the 4-hour strike. The employees filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the Circular. The petition was allowed. Hence the present appeal by the Bank. Counsel ABC of the employees stated that the deduction of the wages for the day amounted to unilaterally changing the service conditions, depriving the workers of their fixed monthly wages, under the contract of service. Wages were paid not from day to day or hour to hour basis but as a fixed amount on a monthly basis. In the absence of a specific term in the regulations, awards and settlements, the Bank could not unilaterally reduce the monthly wage and thus give the employees lesser monthly wages than the contracted one. There is no doubt that whenever a worker indulges in a misconduct such as deliberate refusal to work, the employer can take a disciplinary action against him and impose on him the penalty prescribed for it which may include some deduction from his wages. However, when the misconduct is not disputed but is admitted and resorted to on a mass scale such as when the employees go on strike, legal or illegal, there is no need to hold an enquiry. When the contract, standing orders or the service rules/regulations are silent, but enactment such as the Payment of Wages Act providing for wage cuts for absence from duty is applicable to the establishment concerned, the wages can be deducted even under the provisions of such enactment. The Bank's Counsel XYZ invokes the doctrine 'no work no pay' and invite employees to answer the question in the affirmative. Counsel XYZ said there is an implied contract to receive salary provided the employee does work. Promise to work and promise to pay are mutual. By resorting to the 4-hour strike that day, the employees absented themselves from work resulting in failure of consideration 'no work no pay'. Counsel XYZ justified the deduction of the entire day's salary on the ground that unless the employees work for the first 4 hours when the Bank is open to the public, there is precious little or nothing for them to do the rest of the day. No work no pay, says Counsel XYZ. Counsel XYZ supported his battle-cry by taking employees through a number of decisions. The tentative view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Algemene Bank v. Central Govt. Labour Court (1978-II-LLJ-117) was no work no pay. On the same doctrine, the employees' writ petition was not countenanced and the employees' submission that a contract to pay wages is indivisible in character was rejected by the Madras High Court in V. Ramchandran v. Indian Bank (1979-I-LLJ-122), and R. Rajamanickam v. Indian Bank (1981-II-LLJ-367). The High Court also rejected the contention of the Bank that it was entitled to make deductions under Section 7(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by holding that the provision enabled the employer to deduct wages only if the Bank had power under the contract of employment. The Bank filed a civil appeal against the order of the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the employees. It was further pointed out that whereas, a legal strike may not invite disciplinary proceedings, an illegal strike may do so, it being a misconduct. However, whether the strike is legal or illegal, the workers are liable to lose wages for the period of strike. The liability to lose wages does not either make a strike illegal as a weapon or deprive the workers of it. When workers resort to it, they do so knowing well its consequences. During the period of strike the contract of employment continues, but the workers withhold their labour. Consequently, they cannot expect to be paid. The court has given very sound reasoning for it. It was aptly remarked that it is not enough that the employees attend the place of work, they must put in the work allotted to them. It is for the work not for their mere attendance that the wages/salaries are paid. Thus appeal was allowed. The above problem is based on a leading case "The Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala and others' (1990) II LLJ 39 SC. On consideration of the above facts, answer the following questions: (a) Is the contention of the Bank that it was entitled to make deductions under Section 7(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 correct and to deduct wages only if the Bank had power under the contract of employment ? Explain.