SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Tuesday, August 06, 2024

Printed For: Savar Arora, Symbiosis Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1950 SCC OnLine Mad 183 : AIR 1950 Mad 839 : 1950 LLJ 1133 : (1950-51) 2
FJR 102 : (1950) 2 Mad LJ (NRC 2) 13 : (1950) 2 Mad LJ 479

Madras High Court

(BEFORE RAJAMANNAR, C.J. AND SOMASUNDARAM, J.)

The Electro Mechanical Industries Ltd. Madras … Petitioners;

Versus
Industrial Tribunal No. 2 for Engineering Firms and Type
Foundries, Fort St. George, Madras and another … Respondents.
Civil Misc. Petn. No. 9473 of 1949
Decided on July 12, 1950
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJAMANNAR, C.J.:— This application arises out of a reference dated 27-6-1949
made by the Workers of the Electro Mechanical Industries Ltd. in respect of certain
disputes between themselves represented by the Workers' Union and management.
There were sixteen items of dispute and the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, after due
inquiry made an award on 5-11-1949. The management seeks from this Court a writ
of certiorari to quash the award in respect of ??? of the items of dispute.
2. The first item relates to the deduction of eight days wages from the employees
as per the notice of the management dated 19-4-1949. The workers claim a return of
the wages deducted. The deduction was made by the management because of a strike
by the workmen on 18-4-1949. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the-strike
was not legal and therefore the management was not wrong in punishing the men who
went on strike. The provision which enables the management to make a deduction of
wages in a case of this kind is contained in Section 9 of the Payment of Wages Act.
Sub-section (2) of that section contains the following proviso which is material:
“Provided that, subject to any rules made in this behalf by the (Provincial
Government), if ten or more employed persons acting in concert absent themselves
without due notice (that is to Bay without giving the notice which is required under
the terms of their contracts of employment) and without reasonable cause, such
deduction from any such person may include such amount not exceeding his wages
for eight days as may by any such terms be due to the employer in lieu of due
notice.”
The Tribunal having held that the management was entitled to punish the men who
went on strike, however, considered that the cut of eight days wages was too severe a
punishment and that justice would be met if a punishment of one day's cut of wage
and dearness allowance is imposed instead. He accordingly directed the difference to
be refunded to the workers.
3. Mr. T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar, learned counsel for the management, contended that
the Tribunal, having held that the strike was not justified, had no jurisdiction to direct
a refund of the pay for even days. As the workers claimed the refund on the ground
that the strike was justified, the only question which the Tribunal was called upon to
decide was whether the strike was justified. If it was, there could be no deduction of
wages. If it was not, then the deduction made by the management was justified. So
his argument ran. He conceded that it was open to the Tribunal to decide the question
as to the legality of the strike. In our opinion, the Tribunal was competent to direct a
refund of the wages for seven days. It is true that the workers demanded the return of
the wages for the entire period of eight days. The management, on the other hand,
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Tuesday, August 06, 2024
Printed For: Savar Arora, Symbiosis Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

claimed that the workers were not entitled to any refund, at all. In these
circumstances, as the dispute regarding the deduction was referred to the Tribunal for
decision, it was open to it to hold that the wages for a less number of days than
claimed by the workers should be returned.
4. Mr. Venkatarama Aiyar next contended that though the Tribunal was competent
to decide the question of the legality of the strike, the proper forum to decide any
dispute as regards the deduction of the wages was not the Industrial Tribunal but the
officer appointed by the

Page: 840

Government under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. His contention waa that
the said Act provided far adequate remedy in respect of claims arising out of deduction
from wages. Section 17 of that Act provided also an appeal against any direction which
might be made under S. 15 and S. 22, prevented a Court from entertaining any suit
for recovery of wages or of any deduction from wages. The Industrial Tribunal had
therefore no jurisdiction to direct a return of the wages for any period. There appears
to us to be considerable force in this contention and if the matter had been res
integra, we would have spent more thought over it. But our attention has been drawn
to the decision of the Federal Court in Shanmugar Jute Factory Co. Ltd. v. S.N. Modak,
(1949) 12 FLJ 370 : (AIR (36) 1949 FC 160) on the authority of which we must
overrule this contention of Mr. Venkatarama Aiyer. In the case before the Federal
Court, the question was whether the validity of a lock-out and the claim of the
workmen to payment of wages during the period of the lock-out were industrial
disputes which could be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal. The learned Chief
Justice of India, delivering the judgment of the Full Court said:

“It seeems to us clear that the question whether the employers were justified in
looking out their workmen would be an industrial dispute covered by the words
‘dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment and with the
terms of employment of such workmen.’
The payment of wages during the period of such lookout would also be clearly an
industrial dispute.”
The argument addressed to us based upon the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act
was also addressed to till Federal Court; but the argument was repelled as being
unsound. The learned Chief Justice observed thus in negativing the contention:
“The Tribunal contemplated by Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, is not,
in our opinion, one which could effect the jurisdiction of the Tribunal set up under
Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act and to which a reference could be made
under S. 10 of that Act. The Tribunal set up under the Industrial Disputes Act has a
much wider jurisdiction. In our opinion the two Acts are not in pari materia and the
contention that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal set up under the Industrial Disputes
Act is excluded by the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act is unwarranted.”
These observations apply to the case before us. Here, instead of a lock out, there is a
strike and the claim is for the return of the wages deducted on account of the strike.
We must therefore uphold the award in this matter.
5. The next objection to the award was in respect of the rate of dearness allowance.
The workers claimed dearness allowance calculated on the basis of three annas per
point rise in the cost of living index over 100. The management was not willing to pay
more than two annas. The Tribunal considered that the rate of dearness allowance
should be enhanced from two annas to 2½ annas per point and directed that the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Tuesday, August 06, 2024
Printed For: Savar Arora, Symbiosis Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

enhanced rate should come into force from the date the first wage is drawn after the
publication of the award. The complaint of the management is that there was no
evidence adduced before the Tribunal by either side to warrant this conclusion. On
behalf of the workers it was stated in the counter affidavit that there was evidence
adduced by both parties. We have perused the record but we are unable to find any
definite evidence adduced on this point. The Tribunal arrived at a finding on the point
after taking into consideration certain facts which apparently were within its personal
knowledge having been culled from other awards and similar data. The tribunal says
that there were several engineering firms in Madras City paying dearness allowance at
the rate of 2½ annas a point. It refused to adopt the rate of three annas which firms
like the Beach Engineering Works and Richardson and Cruddas were paying because
the firm in question was started only recently and their affairs had not been
particularly happy. Though a Court of law is not generally entitled to arrive at a finding
in any matter except on the evidence adduced before it, quasi-judicial tribunals like
the Industrial Tribunal, not hampered by the rules of evidence applicable to
proceedings in a Court of law, would be entitled to rely on data available to it
otherwise than from evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. On an application like
this it is not open to us to go into the merits of the conclusion. The only question is
whether we can hold that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in fixing the rate of
2½ annas.
6. That question must be answered in the negative.
7. As no other ground was pressed before us, this application must be dismissed.
C.R.K./D.H.
8. Application dismissed.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.