Madras High Court
Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs The Principal District Judge And Ors. on 13 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1996)IILLJ1229MAD
ORDER S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.
1. These writ petitions are for quashing the order dated August 26,1986 passed by the first respondent in C.M.A. Nos. 1 of 1986,2 of 1-986 and 4 of 1986. Pandian Roadways Corporation Limited is the petitioner in all the three writ petitions.
2. The case of the petitioner is as per the standing order of the Corporation which has been certified by the appropriate authority under the Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, wherein the regularisation for grant of casual leave is provided. Standing order No .7 provides that ordinarily previous permission of the Head of the Department in the Establishment shall be obtained before such a leave is taken. The second respondents in the writ petitions were employed in the corporation. They presented applications to the traffic supervisor for casual leave. As per the standing orders, the employees are required to ascertain whether the leave has been granted or not before proceeding on leave. The Traffic Supervisor informed that the leave could not be granted to second respondents. Inspite of this, the second respondent absented from duty. Hence, the salary was paid to second respondent in W.P.No.2873 of 1987 for the month of April 1985, with deduction of Rs.23.90. When he was to report to duty on March 15,1984,hedidnotreportfor duty on that date. Hence, the Traffic Supervisor made an alternative arrangement to ply the bus with another. Normal practice is driver should put his signature in the duty register on the previous day. The second respondent put his signature in the duty register on March 14, 1984. He stated that he would report for duty on March 15, 1984. Hence, a sum of Rs.27.35 was deducted from the wage of the second respondent in W.P.No.2874 of 1987. As against the deduction, the concerned drivers moved application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
3. The Corporation filed counter stating that the drivers absented wilfully and hence the deduction was made. It was also contended that the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, did not have the jurisdiction to enquire into the claim of this nature. The authority held that the dispute could not be decided under Section 15(2) of the Act. Then appeals were preferred before the first respondent under Section 17-1 of the Act. Without properly going into the facts of these cases, the appeals have been allowed on June 28,1986 holding that the deduction of wages for absence of duty would amount to punishment and hence inasmuch as no opportunity was given to the second respondent before making the deduction, the order was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Appellate Authority held further the deduction was made even before conclusion further the deduction was made even before conclusion of the domestic enquiry. Hence, the writ petitions have been filed before this court by the management.
4. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner/management is that when the worker absented on a day, he has to loose the wages, for the day, since he has not earned it. Secondly the contended that there is no necessity for giving any opportunity before deduction, since there is no question of any dispute involved in the case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the deduction of some amount from the pay is a monetary loss, i civil consequence has resulted in out of the de-luction. Hence, without giving an opportunity to deduct a portion of the salary tantamounts to imposing civil liability on the part of the worker, tience, there is violation of principles of natural ustice. Learned counsel further contended that as per provisions of the wages act, the payment of wages is for a fixed period. Therefore, it is sayable on completion of the period. Hence, when the period is completed, the amount fixed becomes payable. Since the monthly wages lave been fixed, the fixed amount becomes payable, on the completion of the period. As per Sections 3 and 4 of the" Act, employer is responsible for the payment of wages. As per Section 7 of the Act, wages should be paid without deduction. Therefore, when the month is completed, the amount fixed should be paid, if any deduction is to be made, it must be only after giving an opportunity to the second respondent, because the second respondent has become entitled to the wages on the completion of the period i.e., the month.
6. Let us consider this contention first.
7. Section 7 of the Act states that wages of any employee shall be paid to him without deduction of any land except those authorised by or under this Act. Section 7(2) states that deductions from the wages of an employed person shall be made when there is absence from duty of the employed person.
8. Section 10(1A) of the Act provides forgiving an opportunity before the deduction for loss. Section 8 of the Act provides for notice, when deduction is made for fine. When notice is directed to be issued in case of certain deductions and there is no such notice contemplated before deduction for absence the implication is that no notice is contemplated in such cases.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions 1) Dharam singh v. Bank of India 1979 LIC 1079; 2) State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (1967-II-LLJ-266)(SC); 3) Dtvisional Accounts Officer, Eastern Railway v. Dal Singar and Ors. 41 FJR 131; 4) Union of India v. J.N. Singh and Anr. (1970-II-LU- 284)(SC); 5) State of Punjab v. K. Erry (973-I-LLJ-33)(SC); (6) D. Bal Hah v. Secretary Indian Detonators Ltd (1976-n-LLJ- 247)(A.P.) and 7) Orient Paper Mills Sramic Congress v. O.P. Mills 74 Indian Factories Journal Reports 434 and contended that notice is necessary even when deduction is made for absence.
10. In State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei' (supra) no enquiry report was furnished to the delinquent officer. The Supreme Court took the view mat even though the order is administrative in character, even if the administrative order involves civil consequence notice must be given; else principles of natural justice would be violated. It is not helpful to the case of the petitioner. In the present case, what has been done is a statu-torily authorised act and not an unpredictable administrative act.
11. Divisional Accounts Officer v. Dal Singar (supra) is not a case where question of notice before deduction was involved. It is a case of the worker claiming wages which have been withheld. In the said case, it was held that the employer who claims right to deduct wages on account of absence from duty, it would be duty of the employer to place materials before the authority to show that the employee concerned remained wilfully absent from duty or that an order had been passed by a competent authority for the deduction of the wages, If this burden is not discharged by the employer, the employee would be entitled to his wages. In the present case also the employees would have contended that the wilful absence was not proved by the management, but the appellate authority has, without going into the merits of the case allowed it only on the point of violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, this case is not helpful to the respondents.
12. In Union of India v. J.N. Sinha (supra) it has been held that "if a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any rules of natural justice, then the court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature or the statutory authority and read into the concerned provisions the principles of natural justice, This case far from being helpful to the petitioner, supports the respondent.
13. State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry (supra). In this case the Supreme Court has taken the view that "where a body or authority is judicial or where it has to determine a matter involving rights judicially because of express or implied provision, the principle of natural justice audi alteram partem applies." It also held that "where a body or authority is characteristically administrative the principle of natural justice is also liable to be invoked if the decision of that body or authority affects individual rights or interests." No decision taking is involved in the present case. This caseis also not applicable for the reasons given relating to .
14. D. Balliah v. Secretary, I.D. Limited (supra). In this case it has been held that "Deduction in wages is penal in nature". Hence the principle of natural justice requires the notice. In this case, the deduction was for absence, for the period of strike which the employer termed as 'illegal'. The learned Judges took the view that the deduction was penal in nature, therefore, the necessity of notice was stressed in the said case.
15. Orient Paper Mills Sramik Congress v. O.P Mills (supra). The said decision is not helpful to the petitioner and it is not at all in favour of the respondent. Learned Judges of the Orissa High Court make a distinction between the normal deduction of wages for the period of absence and penal deduction of wages for a period upto 8 days. They have held that principles of natural justice is not applicable to normal deduction of wages for the period of absence.
16. The purpose of notice or enquiry before an order is passed or decision is taken affecting any civil right of the citizen is to give him an opportunity to defend if there was a possibility to defend. The affected persons should not be affected in a surprising or unexpected manner. But when the petitioner is aware of the consequences of his own action or he is expected to know about such consequences when he does not act, it cannot be said that even in such circumstances, a decision has been taken or order has been passed affecting his rights to the surprise of the person affected.
17. Here in these two cases, admittedly, the employees absented from duty. The leave was not granted to them. Therefore, they must know what will be the consequences of such absence without leave i.e., they are aware of the likely decision of the employer to deduct the salary. When that is so, what purpose will be served if notice is given. The notice contemplated by natural justice is for two purposes, one is, that the person should not be taken by surprise, the other one is the possibility of his avoiding the consequence, when these two elements are absent, natural justice does not require that notice should be given even in such cases.
18. The provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has been cleverly and clearly worded. The definition of wages itself is as follows:
"Section 2(vi) 'wages' means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment".
One is bound to appreciate the words, 'if the terms of employment were fulfilled and the words, 'work done'. Therefore, the employee is bound to do the work and fulfil the terms of employment. Then only ,he is eligible to get wages.
19. Section 9(1) has been specifically introduced in the Payment of Wages Act. As per the said section, if the employee is absent from the place of work for aperiod during which he is required to work, deduction can be made. In substance, the employee must know he must fulfil the terms of employment by performing his work, otherwise he is not eligible for wages. In substance it is not deduction, but it is failure on I the part of the employee to earn the wages by fulfilling the conditions of employment and performing his work. As the learned Judges of the Orissa High Court put it, the deduction for absence is normal deduction and not penal deduction. But I may even go to the extent of saying that as stated above, it is not a deduction at all, but failure on the part of the employee to earn wages. Therefore, after haying failed to earn the wages by absenting, there is no question of the petitioners being taken by surprise or showing any defence. A person must know the consequences of what he does, if he does not know and expects to be told by others of the same, such persons cannot be helped.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, and contended that when wages are fixed for a period, the wages should be paid after the expiry of the period. The wages will automatically accrue to the employees and there cannot be any deduction. Here again, the legislature has used the words "responsible". What is fixed is the period and not the wages. This argument will have some force, if the wages have to be fixed. If during the fixed period there is any absence and thereby there is no earning of wages, there is no question of deduction at all. I have indicated above, the wages earned by the petitioner during the period, will be wages earned only and it will not include the wages he failed to earn.
21. On a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the deduction by the employer for the absence of the employees without notice or leave is justified and the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.