Bhudiyalur Co.-op. Agricultural Service Limited vs Sethuraman

S. Mohan, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (learned District

Judge, Coimbatore) rendered in C.M.A. No. 125 of 1982.

The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are: The respondent herein is the laboratory chemist under the petitioner. On 26 October

1977 there was a shortage of Endosulfan due to outflow of the material. After enquiry the petitioner herein suggested the value of the shortage of

Endosulfan to be recovered from the contractor Maruthan and from the respondent herein. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 2,904.40 was deducted from

the salary of the respondent. Thereupon, the respondent took up the matter before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the Deputy

Commissioner of Labour held that the recovery was in order. On appeal before the appellate authority (District Judge, Coimbatore), the appellate

authority came to the conclusion that in exhibit R3 the secretary of the petitioner himself admitted that one of the labourers working under the

contractor Maruthan would have wilfully done the mischief of removing the valve from the storage tank and caused wastage of Endosulfan. In view

of this specific admission, the appellate authority allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein. Aggrieved against the said order, the

society has come up before this Court by way of this petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that when the respondent was solely in-charge of the laboratory, and if due to his negligence

the loss has been sustained by the society, certainly the recovery is valid in law. In support of this he relied upon Kedarnath Vs. State, and The

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Babu Ram Upadhya, . In meeting the above submission Sri. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the

respondent, submits that there is no specific finding whatsoever in this case to connect the respondent with the outflow of the material and

according to exhibit R3 somebody, during the short absence of the respondent from the laboratory, had done the mischief. Therefore, to say

collectively that all those who had something to do with the laboratory at the relevant time are liable cannot be the law and the two decisions relied

on by the learned counsel for petitioner have no application to the facts of this case. His further argument is that this is not a case in which Section

7(2)(c) of the Payment of Wages Act would come into play. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority is unassailable.

Undoubtedly the respondent herein is the laboratory chemist under the petitioner-society. There was a shortage of Endosulfan on 26th October

1977. According to the respondent, he was not in any manner liable for the wastage or loss. The contrary stand taken by the petitioner-

management in exhibit R3 is the communication, dated 8th November, 1977, by the secretary of the society to the president of the society stating

that on 26th October 1977 at 8.00 A.M. Subbain the supervisor had entrusted the key of the emulsifying room where Endosulfan was stored, to

Rangaswamy, one of the labourers working under Maruthan, contractor, for starting the machine and Subbain stated that he went to the pulveriser

section and on his return he was informed by the contractor that there was leakage and wastage of Endosulfan. In exhibit R3 the secretary has

mentioned as follows:

From the enquiry it is considered that one of the labourers working under Sri Maruthan, contractor, would have wilfully done the mischief of

removing the valve from the storage tank and caused wastage of Endosulfan"".

Therefore, when the report itself proceeds on the basis that the respondent herein is not responsible for leakage and wastage it cannot be held that

all those who had something to do with the laboratory at the relevant point of time are responsible. Further, on a perusal of Section 7(2)(c) of the

Payment of Wages Act, it is clear that there is nothing to connect the respondent with the outflow of the material and there is nothing to show that

the respondent herein had been guilty of neglect or default by reason of which the damage occurred. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the respondent was in-charge of the laboratory during the relevant point of time, when the damage had occurred, and, therefore, he

alone is responsible for the loss of the material. I am unable to agree with this argument. After all visiting the respondent with an order of penal

consequence would require some nexus between his negligence or default on the one hand and the damage on the other, which is lacking in this

case. Therefore, the conclusion of the appellate authority is perfectly correct and it needs no interference. In this view, the revision petition is

dismissed. No costs. The amount if already recovered from the respondent would be refunded to him on or before 10th January, 1988.