@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
The Hon''ble Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, Chief Justice
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. This revision is directed against the order dated 3.12.1990 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem in C.M.A. No.190 of 1986, confirming the order dated 19.5.1986 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in P.W. A. No.8 of 1986.
2. The facts of the case are stated hereinbelow :-
The petitioners are members of the Salem Steel Plant Employees'' Union, which is a registered body under the Trade Unions Act and they are employed in the first respondent-Salem Steel Plant. They put forth certain demands before the respondent-Management, which included change in the working hours on the lines of other steel plants, introduction of grievance redressal machinery, constitution of works committee, improvement in medical facilities to the workmen, introduction of Tamil Medium in the school where their children study etc. It is the case of the petitioners that even though they approached the Management at various levels since the year 1982, the Management never came forward to address their genuine demands and their attempts to draw the attention of the Management to their grievances by peaceful means in the form of dharna, fasting and procession did not yield the desired result. Therefore, they issued a strike notice on 29.5.1985 intimating the Management that they intend to go on a one-hour tools down strike, but they dropped their proposal in view of the assurance given by the Management that their demands would be discussed. However, the Management did not keep up its promise. In view of the continuing non-cooperation on the part of the Management in even discussing the demands of the petitioner-workmen, the petitioners issued a strike work notice on 22.8.1985 u/s 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that if their demands were not settled, they intended to go no a token strike for one day on 12.9.1985. Despite the intervention of the Conciliation Officer (Labour Officer, Salem), since the Management did not come forward with any satisfactory proposal before in respect of their demands in the conciliation talks held on 26.8.1985 and 9.9.1985, the petitioners were left with no option but to resort to a one-day strike on 12.9.1985. To their shock and surprise, they found that the Management deducted a day''s wages from the petitioners'' salary of September, 1985 for indulging in the one-day strike on 12.9.1985. As a mark of protest, it was resolved in the General Body of the Union held on 4.11.1985 to go on an indefinite strike, but the Management, with an intention to intimidate the workers, issued a show cause notice on 5.11.1985 as to why eight days'' wages should not be deducted for the one-day token strike in which the petitioners indulged on 12.9.1985. The petitioners gave a reply to the notice on 9.11.1985 and filed a writ petition before the High Court. Annoyed at the action of the petitioners, the Management went ahead and deducted wages of eight days from each of the petitioners-workmen for the strike which they resorted to on 12.9.1985. The petitioners filed a petition u/s 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem Region seeking refund of the eight days'' wages deducted from their salaries stating that they resorted to such strike in support of a reasonable cause only after giving due notice to the Management.
3. The respondent-Management contended that the strike on the part of the workmen was a concerted action in order to intimidate the Management and was in violation of Section 22 of the I.D. Act and despite the Management''s notice that the workmen should not resort to any strike, they went on a strike, thus compelling the Management to invoke Section 9(2) of the Payment of Wages Act and it was only after calling for an explanation from the workmen, the deduction of eight days'' salary was effected, which according to the Management is perfectly valid in law.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, after considering the application filed by the workmen and after considering the stand of the Management, came to a conclusion that even though the strike resorted to by the petitioners was illegal, taking into consideration the legitimate demands put forth by them, pressing which they struck work, held that the deduction of eight days'' wages from their salary by the Management is rather harsh and therefore, ordered refund of the said amount to the petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner felt that it would be enough if a wage cut of one day is effected in view of the reasonableness of the demand made by the petitioners and accordingly, while ordering refund of the eight days'' salary deducted, ordered deduction of one day''s wages from the petitioners.
5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the Management as well as the Workmen filed their respective appeals before the District Judge, Salem seeking to set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned District Judge, after discussing the issue in depth, concurred with the finding of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and dismissed both the appeals, thereby confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate court, the workmen have preferred the present civil revision petition.
6. Indisputably, there is a concurrent finding by both the Deputy Commissioner of Labour as well as the learned District Judge, who have held that in view of the fact that their reasonable demands not being met with by the Management despite persistent efforts, the petitioners-workmen had no other alternative except to resort to the strike, in order to draw the attention of the Management to their genuine demands. It was also observed that the Management had failed to come forward to discuss the demands of the workmen even before the Conciliation Officer. However, having held that the workmen were justified in resorting to the strike to press forward their long pending demands, the authorities below erred in law in holding that a pay cut for one day was warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. There cannot be one finding to the effect that the demands of the workmen were for justifiable ends and another diagonally opposite finding to the effect that they should be punished for going on the strike for such a justifiable cause. Hence, that portion of the orders passed by the courts below ordering deduction of one day''s wages from the petitioners-workmen is uncalled for and deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this civil revision petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
