- (1.) Shyamapada Das, the respondent No.2 is an employee of M/s. Algemene Bank Nederland N. V., the petitioner herein. The petitioner carries on banking business in India and for this purpose employees various categories of employees namely, officers, clerical staff and subordinate staff at its establishment at 18A, Brabourne Road, Calcutta. The said establishment is a commercial establishment within the meaning of the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 and as such is registered under the said Act. The banking industry has been declared by the appropriate Government as one engaged in the utility service. The terms and conditions of service including the hours of work, wage structure of the employees are governed by various awards namely, Sastri Award, Desai Award and the Industrywise Bipartite Settlement dated the 19th October, 1966 and various settlements arrived at subsequent thereto. It will be necessary at the relevant time to refer to the provisions of the Bipartite Agreement in detail. On the 10th September, 1976 the members of the staff, clerical and sub-ordinate excepting lady staff by ceasing work in combination left their places of work at 3 P.M. and according to the petitioner Bank, illegally and wrongfully held a meeting and demonstration inside the Bank premises during the Bank's normal working hours by forming, again according to the petitioner Bank, an unlawful assembly. The members of the said assembly including the respondent No.2 Shyamapada Das remained absent from their works, shouted slogans and squatted inside the premises without doing any work from 3 P.M. to 5-45 P.M. The petitioner Bank without prejudice to its rights to take disciplinary action issued a notice. The said notice after setting out the aforesaid facts contained the following statement: "Without prejudice to the right of the Bank to take disciplinary action where warranted, the concerned members of the staff are hereby informed that they would not be entitled to any salary for their period of absence from their duty on the basis of "No work No pay." This will, however, not apply in case of those who were on sanctioned leave on that day."
(2.) The petitioner Bank paid wages to the workmen including the respondent No.2, who had remained absent on the 10 September, 1976 on a pro rate basis for the period they had rendered services and did not pay any wages for the period of absence. Thereupon, on the 17th May, 1976, the respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11.41 before the Central Government Labour Court at Calcutta. The respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner Bank had wrongfully deducted Rs. 11.41 from the salary of the respondent No.2 for the month of September, 1976. It was further alleged by the respondent No.2 that neither in the Bipartite Settlement nor in any law of the land applicable to the parties, was there any provision for deducting monthly salary of any workman pro rata on the basis of the alleged, 'No work No pay'. The petitioner Bank filed an objection to the said application and contended that the application under Section 33C(2) was misconceived and not maintainable. The petitioner contended that the workman concerned had no right under the law to claim wags for the period for which he did not work. It was further contended that the claim of the respondent No.2 was not based on any claim for money or benefit derived under any Award or Settlement but on the ground that although the workmen of the Bank had remained absent from the duty, yet they were entitled to salary for the period of their absence. The petitioner contended that there was no right or entitlement of the respondent No.2 for the money claimed. It was, therefore, submitted that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was misconceived. The application came up for hearing before the Central Government Labour Court at Calcutta and by an order dated the 28th February, 1977 the Central Government Labour Court has allowed the application of the respondent No.2 and has directed the Bank to pay Rs. 11.41. In the said order after setting out the rival contentions and the notice dated the 11th September, 1975 referred to hereinbefore, the Central Government Labour Court has proceeded, inter alia, to hold as follows. "5. Para 19.7 of the Bipartite settlement dated 19.10.1966 deals with 'minor misconduct' which includes (a) absence without leave, (c) neglect of work, negligence in performing duties, (d) breach of any rule of business of the bank or instruction for the running of any department, (e) committing nuisance on the premises of the Bank, etc. The management could have proceeded against the concerned workman under any or all of the grounds enumerated above for the incident which took place on 10.9.1975 within the premises of the bank. Without doing so they proceeded against the workman by deducting proportionate salary out of his monthly emoluments. The Bank cannot shut its eyes against the misconduct. It did not proceed against the workman by taking disciplinary action. Deducting a portion of the workman's salary without giving him in an opportunity to explain his conduct and without taking disciplinary proceedings will amount to a punishment. No punishment can be imposed on a workman except in due process of law. So, the deduction of salary made in this case cannot be supported. 6. A workman is entitled to file an application under Section 33-C(1) or (2) of the Act if he is to recover any amount legally due to him. There is nothing for the workman to establish before this Court except the fact that he was deprived of Rs. 11.41 p. out of his salary or the month of September, 1975. Normally he would be entitled to the amount claimed. He could not be deprived of that amount unless it was withheld in due process of law. The management did not follow any rule of law applicable to the parties before the amount of the salary was withheld. Withholding the salary is invalid and inoperative. The workman is entitled to get back the amount of Rs. 11.41 p. out of his salary for the month of September, 1975, from the Bank."
(3.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner Bank has challenged the said finding and the decision of the Labour Court.;