The Calcutta High Court Bench comprising Justice Amrita Sinha while dealing with the Petition filed by the Professors of Visva-Bharati University against the order of Registrar regarding the compulsory donation of one day salary towards Chief Minister Relief fund of West Bengal, has held that University has no right to deduct the salary of an employee without obtaining the consent of the concerned person.
Background of the Petition
The Petitioners are Professors of different departments of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan. They were dissatisfied with the action on the part of the Registrar (Acting), Visva-Bharati in issuing a notice being No. REG/1547 dated 24th May, 2020 intimating that the accounts office will deduct a day’s salary from the monthly salary of May, 2020, for donating the same in the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, West Bengal/West Bengal State Emergency Relief Fund in aid of the people affected by cyclone Amphan that hit Kolkata and several districts of West Bengal on 20th May, 2020.
A subsequent notice dated 29th May, 2020 issued by the Registrar had also been placed before the Court. The notice mentioned that by virtue of the powers vested in the University and the Vice-Chancellor as per Sections 6 and 14(3) read with Section 5A and other provision of the Visva-Bharati Act, 1951’, the Vice-Chancellor had found it appropriate for the University to contribute to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, West Bengal/West Bengal State Emergency Relief Fund by means of donation of one day’s salary of all permanent employees to support the endeavour of the Government. The notice further mentions that the permanent employees of VisvaBharati are expected to donate a day’s salary in keeping with the Rabindrik tradition and objectives of the University which are described in Sections 5A, 6, and elsewhere in the Act and Statutes.
Petitioners being aggrieved by the decision of the University approached the Hon'ble Court stating that the deduction is impermissible without obtaining the consent of the employees.
Submissions of the Counsel
Counsels on behalf of the petitioners contended that the unilateral action on the part of the University in deducting the salary from the employees, including the petitioners, is whole without jurisdiction and dehors the provision of law. According to the petitioners, there was no provision in the Act that entitled the University to deduct a portion of the salary of an employee.
It was submitted that the second proviso of Section 14(3) of the Act lays down that, an employee who is aggrieved by the action of the ViceChancellor shall have the right to appeal against such action to the Karma-Samiti (Executive Council) within ninety days from the date of communication of such action. It has been submitted that instead of exhausting the remedy available under the Act, the petitioners have approached this Court directly.
The petitioners prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to refund the amount illegally deducted from their salary.
Observation of the Court
The Court stated that the expression donation implies that the sum is being given as aid with the view to help the person/organization. A donation is a voluntary act of a person who intends to donate and held that The employer neither has the power nor the authority to deduct salary or any portion thereof of an employee, unilaterally, in the garb of donation. A person cannot be forced to donate. The moment force is applied, the act of the donor does not remain voluntary, and it amounts to forcible deduction, which is grossly different from the term donation.
It appeared to the Court that, on receipt of the objection from the unwilling employees, the University, to legalize the forcible deduction, took recourse to the provision of Section 14(3) of the Act.
The court said that,
“An employee is paid a salary in lieu of the service rendered. The same is a valuable right in the hand of the employee. The said right cannot be curtailed or infringed without a definite provision of law. Though the University tried to overcome the lacuna in the notice dated 24th May, 2020, by publishing the subsequent notice dated 29th May, 2020 by invoking certain provisions of the Act, but even then, the act of the University cannot be said to be a valid one. When the University was trying to provide aid to the needy and affected people, it ought to have adopted a better approach to set up a corpus for providing help, but should not have used a whip to deduct money from reluctant employees. The same has caused dissent and resentment in the mind of the employees. The apparently noble work to stand by the needy got marred due to overzealous action of the University. The same certainly does display the Rabindrik tradition which the University boasts of.”
The Court was of the opinion that, unilateral deduction of salary or any portion thereof, from an employee, without any authority of law, without taking his consent, cannot be termed as a donation. The same amounts to an illegal deduction. In this regard, Court said that,
“However, keeping in mind that the deduction was made from the monthly salary of the employees for the month of May 2020, and by this time the amount collected from the employees may have been transferred to the account of the donee and may have been used for the aid of the needy, the Court exercises judicial restraint in passing any order for a refund of the amount deducted. The organization which received the money as a donation will also not be in a position to refund the same at such a distant date as the money might have been utilised by now.”
Case Details
Title: Sudipta Bhattacharyya & Ors. v. Visva Bharati & Ors.
Bench: Amrita Sinha
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
