French Motor Case

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES
COLLEGE OF LEGAL STUDIES

BA.LLB(HONS.)
SEMESTER VIII
ACADEMIC YEAR: 2013-2014 SESSION: JANUARY-MAY
ASSIGNMENT
FOR
Labour Law - II
Under the Supervision of: Priya Mishra

NAME: KARAN CHAUDHARY
SAP NO: 500012315
ROLL NO: R450210059

French Motor Car Co. Ltd. Workers Union
Vs.
French Motor Car Co. Ltd.

In this case the petitioner is a Workers' Union and represents the workmen of M/s. French Motor
Car Company Limited, Dispur, Guwahati. The petitioner tiled a petition before the learned
Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati, an authority appointed under
the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, on behalf of 29 workmen claiming pay from 13th May, 1974
to 31st May, 1975 and also variable D.A.for the year 1973 payable in 1974.
The issue is non-payment of wages for 16 days. There is no dispute that on 13th, 14th and 15th
May, 1974 the employees, that is the members of the present petitioner adopted the principle of
'go slow' and also resorted to strike. In other words, they did not work and on the principle of 'no
work, no pay', the management was justified in deducting their pay for the aforesaid period of
three days.
After that the workmen reported for duty and signed the entry register but they were asked to
execute a guarantee bond before they could be allowed to resume their duties by the
management. In the guarantee bond it was stated that after resumption of duty the employees
would not resort to strike of any sort. On the face of it asking for such an undertaking before
allowing any employee to resume his work is clearly an unfair labour practice. So the employees
refused to sign the bond and they were justified in refusing to give this undertaking.
An employer can deduct the wages under section 7(2)(b) of the Act for absence from duty.
Absence from duty by an employee must be of his own volition and it cannot cover his absence
when he is forced by circumstances created by the employer from carrying out his duty. In the
case in hand as the absence of the employees was not voluntary, inasmuch as they were not
allowed to resume their work without signing the guarantee bond, no deduction can be made
under the Act.
Learned District Judge has observed, 'Even if such an undertaking is given that will be against
the statute and in this sense such undertaking also cannot help the employer to avoid strike. 1
mink the Union of the workmen was quite enlightened to such things and under no
circumstances such guarantee bond could be a clog against the resuming of the duties by the
workmen'.
In my view the observations made by the district judge as not relevant and baseless because the
signing the bond by the labour would amount to injustice and will be unfair trade practice on
behave of the employer. Workmen unions have be recognized by law and every worker has a
right to revolt to any injustice done to them and no employer can confiscate this right from the
workers. India is a democratic nation and the constitution of India expressly recognizes the right
of workers and in furtherance provides for the social justice of the workers. 7
th
schedule, list III-
concurrent list, Entry 22 provides for trade union and industrial and labour dispute.There are
various legislations in force for the protection and betterment of the workers. Some of them
include Employee State Insurance Act 1948, Maternity Benefit Act 1961, Workmen
Compensation Act 1923, Factories Act 1948, Equal Remuneration Act 1976.
Unlike in the case of Surendranathan Nair & ors v. Senior Divisional Personal Officer
1
where the
workers did not come to work and were instead participating in a strike. Thus the court allowed
deduction from their salary as the leave by the workers was voluntary.
But the in present case the employee were present for work and were willing to work but the
employer had laid down such terms and conditions which any prudent worker would deny. Thus
the workers were forced not to work. Had it been voluntary, the employer would be ripe in
deducting the wages but this not being the case, the workers should be entitled to wages for 16
days. The court also held in favour of the workers.

1
(1988)I L.L.J. 227 (Kerala)

French Motor Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

French Motor Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

French Motor Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

COLLEGE OF LEGAL STUDIES

You might also like