•^'-f-3:: M^ 'ww i'Sij'ffl; Swt ^i-ffK!;"' ::ail@aa!»isffiEfflg ?i- 1% WM "iW: iptfi® .s-"'11 sSI : 'i:9Ii 'l-'^ M ftscis, 'fiten yss IIIs; »«K ^"s' SSS8BBiSBJBK sA s8S!ff i' ' S'i y»?a,SK! fsl'iiSS";, "WSs^W' ^SgStstoM 'wasffs' 'fS(SfSf ^•sS?i-iS aUKSitg",. MSSKs 3Hi{|^'BjSB iK'<iS';!3i& 'iSWSs WffSSi: ;''®B5sEiKi! iiijgggi •'Wl'SSS %®w ^.gHBif !%1 s: ''•:'&w": fS W:Ss ss'MMigi 'sr^'ffSsss^ fSSSSiiM ' -"'^WyKg'" SsgSGB)Si MiiKiSBi'^ ttS:is8@i^ wsssss.' calia'Sg!;iSiijEB;? SSBgSaSI^ MSSSfitw WiSSSSffi SSSiifSSKS :SSSSSSSS/Si SfBBfS IP«11 8i» SMi& iIN s:' O) • ^SiS^iSSiSSiiSS^SSS&S- ;^^I^^^i^^^^ti!s^^@%'^l^:!; ^^l:?l^^%i^ii^NiSi?%ft^i;B si BIiB8aWBSiaW sSSB&SSsS&eM&^ ^^ ^iff. '^a3:s g£ •®Eli [Mt^S^s^s^^M •Ssss3sfs:'^wS'^?SM:wvSi, 'SSSSSs ^^.i!©.^ •W'^tS^ ^..'sSS^ M;"i;S^ : si.,v^. S-wgS^iSSSS. ^' '8^SsisS& ^^*'S^S^..!SS •..^SWsi.h ^^sSf.is.M. .:a;J';fii;t3i®^ :IBBBB)HiiW^i "<®aswici-ly1. •;:fVSSStiSl{K ^•g^g^'.K: Sg'-o'ttte,- ^:IK S:K'^ iillBK^ .-°'K31 ®^' •^^MpKsi-'w,1 ^^S-Sff :';;::K;3:(Utgl-jl, ^^.y^s^ ^ 'SSW»^ |j?|j :y, : HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BjLASPUR :: CHHATTtSGARH c~ s'. Present M.P. No. 814 OF 1990 South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Vs. Shri Rambilas Sobhnath & Others Mr. P.S. Koshy, leamed counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for respondentNo.1 QRDER ifa (23"'June.2005) This petition is filed under Artide 226/227 of the Constitution of India by South Eastern Coalfields Limited against the order dated 05.12.1989 of the Appellate Authority (i.e. Industrial Court) under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") passed in Appeal No.5 of 19S8 upholding the finding / order dated 17.01.1989 passed bythe Paymentof Wages Authority Bilaspur (i.e. Labour Court) in CaseNo.65/PWAct/87. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner on the basis of agreement between the Management and representatives of Trade Unions dated 01.01.1985 and 25/26.01.1985 deductedone daysalaryof21.01.1985 all the officers, staff and workers for the purpose of contribution to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund to be used for victims of Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The workers were allowed to work for the rest dayon the payment of double wages, to compensate the rest day, the workers were given paid holiday on 26.01..1985. The respondent No.1 in the capacity of General Secretary, Chhattisgarh Khadan Kharkhana Mazdoor Union filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Act before the Payment of Wages Authority elaiming the salary for .the day i.e. 21.01.1985, which was deducted for the contribution to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund for the use of Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims. The petitioner filed its reply challenging the maintainability of the applieation. The Payment ofWages W^F: .^ Authority after perusing the records and cQnsidering arguments 6f both the parties, came to the conclusion that the deduction of the wages made for the day i.e. 21.01.1985 is not covered under the provisionsof Section 7(2)(kk) & 7(2)(p) of the Act and as such the petitiqner was directed to repay the wages to the respondent, for the day j.e. 21.01.1985 deducted under Section 7(2)(kk) & 7(2)(p) oftheAct. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitionerfiled an appeal bsforethe Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority upheld the finding and order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 17.01.1989 passed by the Payment of Wages Authority and the order dated 05.12.1989 passed by the Appellate Authority. on the ground that both the judgments were perverse because they have not applied the provisions of theAct legally. 5. Mr. Koshy, leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 7(2)(p)of the Act is very ctear that the word "employed person" used in the provision is "person either himself/hersetf or through his / her representative unions" and as such this deduction forthe Prime Minister's Relief Fund is permissible under Seetion 7(2)(p) of the Act. Section 7(2)(p) of the Act reads as under: "7. Deductions which may be made from wages.- (2) XXX XXX XXXXXX (p) deductions, made with the written authorfczation of the employed person, for contribution to the Prtme Minlster's National Relief Fund or to such other Fund as the Central Government may, by notification in the OfficialGazette, specify." :iw Learned counsel relies on Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union, Bombayand anothervs. Balmer Lawrie&Co. Ltd.and Others reported inAIR 1985 SC 311 wherein the Supreme Court in p&ra 26 has.held that a settlement '•v^- •• -'- ''•<«£j ^' ••^ arrived at on consent of parties can however permit a deduction as it is the outcome of understanding between the parties even though such deduction may not be authorised or legally permissible under the Payment of Wages Act. 6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submits that the settlement in this case are duly signed by all th® representatives representing the workers and the management and the settlement is blndingon all the workers and as such written authorization of all the employed persons as provided in Section7(2)(p) is applicable to the presep^scase. He'further submits that the Courts below have not applied the provisions of the Act property and as such both thejudgments and orders of Payment of Wages Authority as well as the Appeltate Authority deserves to be quashed. 7. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counse! appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits, in support of the judgments and orders passed by the Payment of Wages Authority and Appellate Authority, that the Courts below have rightly appreciated the provjsions of Section 7(2)(p) of theAct holding the present case is not covercd under Section 7(2)(kk) and Section 7(2)(p) of the Act. Sectlon 7(2)(p) of the Act clearly mentions the written authorization ofthe employed perspns, and it does not mean that the representative unions are authorised in absence ofauthorization ofthe employed person concemed and as such deduction made by the management was illegal andunauthorized. ^ 8. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing records of the case, 1 am of the view that this is a settled position of law that if authorization has been given by the representatives of the trade unions / assodations representing the workers 1o deduct one day salary, there is substantial compliance of Section 7(2)(p) of the Aet. The Hon'bte Supreme Court in Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union, Bombay andanother vs. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. and Others (supra) has ctearly held that a settlement arrived at on consent of parties can however permit a deduction as it is the outcome of understanding between the parties even though such deduction may not be authorised or legally pennissible under the Payment of WagesAet. In / the present case, the deduction for contribution to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund is duly authorized on the basis of written authorization of the employed person as such it was legal deduction permissible in law. 9. In view of the foregping discussion, the-Payment. of Wages Authority and the Appeilate Authority have gone in error in holdihg thatthe deduction was unauthorized. 10. Pursuantto the order dated 17.01.1989 passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.12.1988, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.63,618/- before the Payment of Wages Authority in M.P.N6.814 of 1990. Since the amount deposited is the wages ofonly One day and has been lying w'rth the Payment of Wages Authority, the respondent is hot entitled to take it back. The same may be given to the respondent workers. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has not raised any serious objection, if the amount of wages for one day is paid to the \)vorkers whohave been working for so many ysars with the petitioner. 11. The Payment of Wages Authority Is directed to disburse the payment to all the workers within a period of one month. 12. This order for making payment to the workers may not be taken as precedent. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the above extent. 14. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, th6 parties shall bear their own costs. —" Sarma Sd/- Satish K.Agaihot!-! Judge ^VSf' n;':