1971 PLP 291 (PLC)

Where there is a specific provision for deduction of wages it is not a measure of punishment or alteration of the service condition. As against a specific provision in an Act the general provision cannot have its way. It is clear that the specific remedy lies under the Payment of Wages Act in a case under the Act. Further by deduction of wages inn the alleged Principle of 'no work no pay' service condition is not altered or no punishment is thereby imposed on the workers. So deduction of wages cannot be called a measure of punishment. It is correct that under section 35(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 there is specific provision empowering the Labour Court, under the Payment of Wages Act to decide cases under that Act. But as no such authority has been given to this Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter under section 60 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as specific remedy lies under a different Act in a different Court. This case has been filed against 10 'persons 'including Mr. A.K.M. Habibur Rahmin Chairman, E.P.R.T.C. by Mr. M. A. Malek, General Secretary of the E.P.R.T.C. Workers" Union. The case of the first party is that on 4th June 1970 while there was a general strike and the E.P.R.T.C. workers attended the officers, signed the attendance register, they were not allowed by officers of the E.P.R.T.C. to take out the vehicles on the roads for fear of damage and destruction by the members of the public as is done on such occasions. About 950 workers were charge -sheeted for not doing their duties on that day and were told to show cause within 7 days of the receipt of the charge‑sheet. It is now pleaded that during the pendency of I. R., Case No. 166 of 1970 without seeking any permission from this Court, the employer accused persons deducted one day's pay of these workers on 1‑7‑1970 before they could show reason and that this action on the part of the employer tantamounts to punishment otherwise as stated in section 47 of the I. R. O. Thus the second party having violated the salient provisions of section 47 has committed an offence punishable under, section 60 of the I. R. O. Now the cornerstone of the argument of the first party is that the deduc tion of the pay of one day even after the attendance of the workers in the office of the E.P.R.T.C. amounts to punishment and that this punishment has been given before they could show reasons for not doing any work such as taking out the vehicles on the roads on 4‑6‑197,

0. The first party wanted to adduce evidence to the effect that the officers did not allow them to take out the vehicles for fear of damage and destruction of the same. Certain law points have been raised by the learned counsel of the second party stating4hat there is a specific provision in section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for adjudication in the matter of deduction of wages of workers illegally, etc. and that the authority could even impose fines to the extent of ten times of the wages so deducted in case it is found, that the deduction is illegal and unjustified. He submits that as there is specific provision in the Payment of Wages Act for arriving, at a decision regarding deduction of. wages, the first party is not entitled to make an Application in this Court against the second patty as udder section 35(6) this Court has not been empowered under am Payment of Wages Act, 1936 to take, any cognisance in such matter. It is correct that under section 35(6) there is specific provision empowering this Court under the Payment of Wages Act to decide cases under that Act. But no such authority has been given to this Court. It is as such, pleaded that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a case arising out of deduction of wages for which specific remedy lies in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Refusing the argument of the first party that deduction of wages constitutes punishment otherwise it is submitted that when there is a specific provision for taking action for deduction of wages in the Payment of Wages Act, such case cannot come within the purview of the I. R. O. Where there is a specific provision for deduction of wages it is not a measure of punishment or alteration of the service condition. As against a specific provision in an Act I have to hold that the general provision cannot have its sway. It is clear that the specific remedy lies under the Payment of Wages Act in a case under that Act. Further, I find that by deduction of wages on the alleged principle of 'no work no pay' service condition is not altered o no punishment is thereby imposed on the workers. ‑So deduction of wages cannot be called a measure of punishment. In the present case it has been admitted that none of the workers explained their position with regard to the charge‑sheet and no further action has been taken by the second party. It has also been stated that the deduction of wages has been made on a different consideration and it has no connection with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the workers by way of charge‑sheeting them. I am of the view that the charge‑sheet was on account of not doing the work even after attending office and it has no connection with the deduction of wages which is on the' basis of no work no pay. If the first party was to apply for 'any relief on this score this Court is not the proper forum for that. They should approach the appropriate Court. As about Mr. A. K. M. Habibur Rahman, P. S. P., who is a Government servant and Chairman of the E.P.R.T.C., no action lies here as even sanction has to be obtained under section 197, Cr. P. C., before seeking prosecution against him and the first party in that case should apply to the Government for such sanction, before approaching the Court. But this has no bearing in the present case in view of my earlier discussion in the matter. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it appears that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter as specific remedy lies under a different Act in a different Court. The complaint petition may be returned to the first party for filing in a proper, Court. I have consulted the members who have differed with each in their opinion.