SCA/1428/1988 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1428 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE =============================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? =============================================== LIFE ISNURANCE EMPLOYEE'S ASSOCAITATION. Versus CHAIRMAN & Others. =============================================== Appearance : MR GIRISH PATEL for the Petitioner. MR AK CLERK for the Respondents. =============================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A. L. DAVE Date : 13/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petitioner is an Association representing the employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India. The petition is preferred to SCA/1428/1988 2/4 JUDGMENT challenge the action on the part of the respondents of deducting one day's remuneration on account of strike observed by the employees of the Corporation on 15th March, 1988. The strike was observed on account of a “Bandh” call. The employees were forewarned by the Corporation vide notice dated 9th March, 1988 that, if they proceed on with the strike, their remuneration for the day would not be paid. Still, however, they proceeded with the strike and the Corporation, i.e. the respondent-authorities, deducted their remuneration for the day. Therefore, they have preferred this petition, through their Association, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs :- “(A) quashing and setting aside explanation (1) of Regulation 56(2) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960; (B) quashing and setting aside the orders of penalty at Annexure 'A' & 'A-1'; (C) quashing and setting aside the decision and/or order passed by the respondent Corporation informing the offices to deduct the wages and for postponement and/or deferment of the normal increment for the participation of employees in 'Bharat Bandh' on 15th March, 1988; (D) restraining the respondents from acting and implementing upon the notice and circular at Annexure 'A” & 'A-1' and any other order in that connection if passed thereafter; (E) restraining the respondent Corporation from deducting the wages of employees for their participation in 'Bharat Bandh' SCA/1428/1988 3/4 JUDGMENT call on 15th March, 1988 and directing the Corporation to make the payment of full salary without any deduction for their absence on 15th March, 1988; (F) quashing and setting aside the decision of the respondent Corporation to keep in abeyance the decision to grant or reject the leave applications (C.L., S.L., etc. etc.), which were submitted by some of the employees for 15th March, 1988; (G) granting any other appropriate relief.” 2. After the petition was admitted and while the same was awaiting final hearing, this very question cropped up before the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Bank of India v. T. S. Khelawala, as reported in 1990(4) SCC 744, and the Court invoked principle of 'No work, No Pay' holding that notwithstanding the absence of term in the contract of employment or in absence of any provision in the Service Rules or Regulation, an employer is entitled to deduct the wages for the period that the employee has refused to work, although work is offered to the employee. 2.1 Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of HMT Limited v. HMT Head Office Employees & Others, (1996) 11 SCC 319. 3. In the instant case, there is a specific provision in Regulation 30(2) of the (Staff) Regulations, 1960, which prescribes that an employee, who absents himself from duty without leave or overstays his leave, shall not be entitled to draw any pay or allowances during such absence or overstay and shall further be liable to such disciplinary SCA/1428/1988 4/4 JUDGMENT measures as the competent authority may deem necessary. 4. In light of such provisions and in view of the law settled by the Apex Court in the decision of Bank of India (supra) as well as HMT (supra), there appears no merit in this petition. The petition must fail and stands dismissed with no order as to costs. [ A. L. DAVE, J. ] gt