- (1.)These writ petitions are taken up with consent of the parties. Notice to respondent 21 dispensed with.
(2.)The petitioner is a Corporation owned by the Government of Karnataka. According to petitioner, the respondents before this Court requested the petitioner-Management to purchase consumer durables on instalments basis. The petitioner had discussion with M/s. Nagarjuna Investment Trust Limited, Hyderabad which is a private agency in respect of extention of finance to the employees under hire purchase scheme for purchase of consumer durables. The said company came forward to the extend the facilities. The management agreed to remit the amount after recovering from the employees in instalments to the investment Corporation. The management put up a notice on the notice board dated 18/19-7-1990 informing the employees to submit their applications for availing the benefit on or before 20-7-1990. About 82 employees at Channapatna came forward to avail the benefit of the scheme and signed the requisite forms. The said 82 employees purchased TV sets from a reputed Company M/s. Dyanora Limited, through the agency of M/s. Mohini Electronics, Bangalore. It is also stated that the prices of the TVs differed from set to set. The respondents were required to pay the instalment amount on the date of receiving their salary every month from the management. The management was remitting it to the financial agency. The respondents paid 7 instalments due under the hire purchase without any demur. However, subsequently they filed a complaint of illegal deductions from their salaries before the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore on the ground that the Payment of Wages Act does not authorize such deductions from their salaries and claimed refund of deductions already made. The application was allowed which is the subject-matter of writ petition filed by the management.
(3.)The learned Counsel for the petitioner-Management submits that the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is very limited and on the facts and circumstances of this case, no application could be made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also submitted that the workmen had voluntarily agreed to an agreement and also had authorised the management to deduct the amount which had been advanced for purchase of TV by hire purchase company. In the light of authorisation, the management had acted by means of a contractual agreement to deduct the amounts that were due for the purchase of the TV set.