LexBANK OF INDIA versus T.S. KELAWALA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
BANK OF INDIA
v.
T.S. KELAWALA AND ORS.
WITH
B
S.U. MOTORS PRIVATE LID.
v.
Tiffi WORKMEN EMrLOYED UNDER IT
·'"{
MAY 4, 1990
-...,
c
(KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.)
Payment of Wages Act, 1936: Sections 7(2) and 9-Absence from
work or indulging in go-slow tactics-Pro-rata deduction/non-payment
of wages by employer-Whether justified.
j
D
In the former appeal, the appellant is a nationalised Bank. In
1977, some demands for wage revision made by the employees of all
Banks were pending and in support of their demands, a call for a
country wide strike was given. The appellant-Bank issued a Circular ou
September 23, 1977 to its managers and agents directing them to deduct
wages of the employees for the days they go on strike. The respondent·
E
Unions gave a call for a four hour strike on December 29, 1977. Two
days before the strike, the appellant-Bank issued an Administrative "'
Circular warning the employees that if they participate in the strike,
they would be committing a breach of their contract of service and they
would not be entitled to salary for the full day and they need not report
~
for work for the rest of the working hours on that day. However, the
F
employees went on strike as scheduled, for four hours which included
banking hours of the public, and resumed duty thereafter. The
appellant-Bank did not prevent them from doing so. The appellant·
'
.;.
Bank hy its circular directed the managers and agents to deduct the full
day's salary of those employees who participated in the strike. On a
writ petition tiled by the respondents, the High Court quashed the said
G
Circular. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was dismis·
sed. Hence, the appeal by the Bank.
In the latter appeal, the appellant is a company whose workers
had indulged in "go-slow" in July 1984, thereby bringing down pro-
1'
duction. The workers did not attend to their work and were loitering in
H the premises and were indulging in go-slow tactics to pressurise the
214
··-.,.
' '>- .
- _,,,,,/·
BANK OF INDIA v. KELAWALA
215
company to concede their demands. The company suspended its opera-
tion by giving a notice of lock out. It did not pay wages to the workers
for July, 1984 on the ground that they did not work during all the
working hours and had not earned their wags. The workers' union filed
a complaint before the Industrial Court complaining that the appellnat-
company had indulged in unfair labour practice and that the lock-out
declared was illegal. The Industrial Court held that the deduction of
wages for July, 1984 on account of the go-slow W31' not justified. It also
declared that.the company had committed an unfair labour practice by
not paying full monthly wages to the workers and directed the company
to pay the said wages for the month of July, 1984. Aggrieved, the
appellant company has preferred the appeal.
Allowing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: J.l . There is no doubt that whenever a worker indulges in
a misconduct such as a deliberate refusal to work, the employer can
take disciplinary action against him and impose on him the penalty
prescribed for it which may include some deduction from his wages.
However, when misconduct is not disputed but is, on the other hand, '
admitted and is resorted to on a mass scale such as when the employees
go on strike, legal or illegal, there is no need to hold an inquiry. To
insist on an inquiry even in such cases is to pervert the very object of the
inquiry. In a mass action such as strike it is not possible to bold an
inquiry against every employee nor is it necessary to do so unless, of
course, an employee contends that although he did not want to go on
strike and wanted to resume bis duty, he was prevented from doing so
by the other employees or that the employer did not give him proper
assistance to resume his duty though he had asked for it. That was
certainly not the situation in the present case in respect of any of the
employees and that is not the contention of the employees either. It is
true that in the present case when the employees came back to work
after their four-hours strike, they were not prevented from entering the
Bank premises. But admittedly, their attendance after· the four-hours
strike was useless because there was no work to do during the rest of the
hours. It is for this reason that the Bank had made it clear, in advance,
that if they went on strike for the four-hours as thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.