Santosh Kumar Chakravarti, J. - (1.) This Rule was issued at the instance of "the employer in respect of an order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which he directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,32 which had been deducted by the petitioners from the wages of the Opposite parties workers under the petitioners.
(2.) It would appear that on the 23rd of December, 1964 many workers under the petitioners stopped work for an hour, some between 1-30 P. M. and 2-30 p. m. and some between 2-30 p. m. and 3-30 p.m. on account of some grievances on their part. It was in effect a tool-down strike and that "as the strikers abstained from performing any duty, they failed to earn any wages for the aforesaid period. Hence they will not be paid any wages for the same." The evidence on record would disclose that the opposite parties in this proceeding had actually abstained for performing their duties for an hour on the date in question or in other words, had taken part in that tool-down strike. It would further appear from the evidence that the General Manager issued the notice, Ext. A on the 26th December, 1964 which I have referred to above and in pursuance of the notice deductions were made from the wages of these persons to the tune Rs. 5.16. The opposite parties did not move the employers but filed an application before the authority under the aforesaid Act and the learned Authority was of the opinion that as the employer had not served notice on each worker and given them an opportunity to explain their conduct before passing a peremtory order for deduction of wages and had not observed the procedure as laid down in rule 15, the deductions were illegal and he, therefore, allowed the claim of Rs. 5.16 also compensation of Rs. 5.16 and a cost of Rs. 10/- in favour of the opposite parties.
(3.) Mr. Prasanta Kumar Ghose, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the authority was wrong in holding that the deductions in the case of these workers was illegal. Under sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act deductions from the wages of an employed person may be made for absence from duty. Section 9 relates to deductions for absence from duty. Under the explanation to that section, "an employed person shall be deemed to be absent from the place where he is required to work if, although present in such place, refuses, in pursuance of a stay-in-strike or for any other cause which is not reasonable in the circumstances to carry out his work." It was a tool-down strike without any just cause and therefore, in view of the aforesaid sections it was within the competence of the employer to deduct a portion of their wages treating such strike as absence from duty.;