| Dear all, I am working as a Legal Officer in a company,if any body is here ,who is well versed in Labour Law , pls explain me the section (9) of payment of wages Act. Pls tell me,whether there are any incorrect statement in the following stetements,if there, correct me. The payment of wages Act stipulate two types of deductions in two situations Firstly, normal deductions u/s 9 (1) of the Act, when an employee was absent for a period, then the deduction is equal to the actual period of absence of duty, and , Secondly, if he fall with in the purview of proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 9, that is, if 10 or more employed persons acting together absented themselves without due notice and without reasonable cause, in addition to the deduction of wages for the period of their absence, further or penal deduction up to a period of 8 days may be imposed, subject to the conditions in the rule made by the State Government in this regard u/s 26 (3) g of the Act. As in a case ,where an employee who was absent from his duty for a particular period , management can deduct wages for the period (day/s) equal to the actual period (day/s) of absence of duty. In the second case which is a group action of 10 or more employees , management can deduct wages of an employee in that group up to 8 days in addition to the deduction of wages for the period of their absence. ie if he was absent for 10 days , management can deduct 10 days wages plus wages for a period <= 8 days . That is, maximum 18 days deduction possible. Hence, management can deduct up to 9 days wages of an employee for an absence of a single day, provided , he falls within the proviso of Section 9 (2), ie second case, otherwise, only for a single day, in this case. And the maximum days management can deduct is same as the actual days the employee is absent in the first case and with respect to second case, the actual days he is absent plus up to 8 days additional, may be deducted. However , the total permissible deductions from the wages of an employee shall not exceed 50 % of his total wages as per Section 7 (3) of the Act. Thanks & Regards shonith P.S. Dear Mr.Shonith 1. The basic Principle is that deductions for absence from duty. Deductions from wages on account of absence of an employed person should be proportionate to the period of absence from work. If a man is absent for one day out of 8, he can only lose 1/8 of his wages and the employer cannot make a greater deduction because of the inconvenience occasioned to him by such absence (Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. K. R. Gadgil, A.I.R. 1941, Bom. 26). Also as per sub-section 2 of this section, if the duration of his wage period is one month, the total number of working days being 25, and the employed person is absent from duty for four days, the maximum deduction allowed is 4/25th of the wages for the month. This is so because the amount of deduction is to be proportionate tothe period for which a person is required to work which is 25 days in the present case. This section lays down the maximum amount of deduction. It may be less if the employer so wills. 2. Deduction for strike. As an exception to what is said in the above paragraph, the employer is entitled to make deduction upto 8 days of wages where ten or more employed persons acting under concert absent themselves without due notice and without reasonable cause. It may be noted that the legislature has not used the word 'strike' though this proviso relates to strike so called. The reason seems to be that the word 'strike' is used in different senses and has no accepted connotation. 3. Proviso to sub-sec (2) of Sec. 9 of the Act provides further ..’if ten or more employed persons acting in concert absent themselves without due notice (that is to say 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 be any such terms be due to the employer in lieu of due notice’. For imposing this deterrent deduction of max. no. of 8 days in the wage period, two conditions should be applicable concurrently viz. i. Resorting to Strike / absence in concert AND ii. Without reasonable cause 4. Forfeiture of wager in lieu of notice not permissible. In view of the provisions of section 7 and 9, it appears that a clause in the contract of employment requiring fourteen / fifteen days Notice before leaving service and stipulating that wages would be forfeited in the absence of notice would be void. Under section 7 wages are to be paid without un-authorised deductions and the present section does not authorise deduction by way of forfeiture except in cases covered by the proviso to sub-section 2 (absence of ten or more persons acting in concert and without reasonable cause). The employer however retains his right to sue for failure to give notice but he is not entitled to forfeit the wages earned. (13 Bom. L. R. 19).] 5. In addition to the above, the safeguard for employees under Sec.7 (3) (ii) is that the total deduction should not exceed 50% of the wages. Hence the right to impose the deduction of max.of 8 days must operate within the constraints of Sec.7 (3) (ii) and the conditions stated under para 3 above. 6. In the light of the aforesaid explanations, it would be unrealistic to resort to 1+ 8 days deduction. In fact, any deduction beyond 1+ 1 days would be liable to be challenged in the Court and the employer needs to be more prudent while resorting to such punitive measures, if the deductions are disproportionate to the cause and period of absence. A.Irudayam, M.A., M.B.A., LL.B. Advocate and HR Consultant +919940686632 Dear Shonith, The issue raised by you is interesting. Reply given by Shri Irudayam is perfectly right. We have to see the issue in question separately. First, Deduction under Section 9(1) of the Payment of Wages Act - i.e. general absence - Deductions for the actual absence can be made. secondly, in Section 9(2), the issue is 10 or more person acting in concert without notice and without reasonable cause. This is a penalty imposed by the Employer. Shri Irydayam has clarified it. Thirdly, the 50% ceiling for deductions under Section 7. The penalty imposed under Section 9(2) is not included in the 50%. Section 7(2) (a) Fine is the Fine under Section 8 and not the penalty under Section 9(2). Hence, I think we need not take the deduction (penalty) under Section 9(2) for the purpose of computation of 50% under Section 7(2). KCS Kutty, Chennai Dear sir, Thanks a lot for giving me insight to the relevent sections of the said act. Pls give me one more specific answerr to my doubt stated below, If an employ falls with in the purview of proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 9, that is,if he is one among the 10 or more employed persons acting together absented themselves without due notice and without reasonable cause, subject to prvisions of Sec.7 (3) (ii), if the said employee remains absent for one single day,what is the maximum no of days management can deduct from his wages for that single days absence ? and pls clarify the comment of Mr.KCS Kutty that we need not take the deduction (penalty) under Section 9(2) for the purpose of computation of 50% under Section 7(2). Thanks & Regards shonith P.S. Dear all, I appreciate the thoroughness of Mr. KCS Kutty, for whom I am developing high regard. As regards his observation reg. Sec. 7 (2),I would like to clarify that it is only a reproduction of the Bombay labour Court Judgement as reproduced under para 4 of my reply and no significance or reliance is sought under it. However, I still hold that what I had stated under para 5 ( wrongly typed as 4 again ) of my previous reply hold good regarding the instant case. As regards Mr.Shonith’s query regarding deducting wages for one day, the legal position has been clarified in paras 3 and 6 ( wrongly typed as 5). What is ‘proportionate’ and having nexus to the cause for imposing the deduction as a penalty is an administrative action within the legal parameters specified. Without knowing the details of the case, one can not venture to hazard a guess. A.Irudayam
|
|
