THE PAYMENT OF WAGES (AMENDMENT) BILL 215
by the amendment in order to the conclusion that the purposes are beneficial really. There are other omissions in section 7 as it stands and those omissions relate to cases of workmen who are employed in what are called incremental scales. This is a new thing in the bill and I wish to explain to the House not only what the provisions are but the circumstances which have led us to bring forward this amendment. The sub-section (3) of section
4 deals with three cases. It deals with the case of withholding of increment of an employee who is employed on an incremental scale. It deals with the case of demotion from a higher grade to a lower grade with consequent deduction in salary. Thirdly, it deals with the case of retention of an employee in a grade, the deduction of salary being due to loss of efficiency. The reason why it has become necessary to bring forward these amendments embodied in sub-section (3) of section 4 is that it has its origin in a decision given by the Judicial Commissioner of Sind. It was a case in which an employee who is, I believe an Engine driver, was concerned. His grade was maintained, but his salary was reduced. He went to a court of law for redress and pleaded that the reduction of his salary, while he was continued in the grade, was a deduction unauthorised by law. The Judge upheld the contention and said that was an unauthorised deduction. But the Judge observed that if there was a new contract entered into with an employee telling him that as his efficiency was not of the required level and standard to discharge his duties that are incumbent upon an officer holding that particular grade, and if the new contract was accepted by him, then the deduction would be justifiable. Now, what I have done in the Bill is to accept the suggestion made by the Judge, namely, that whenever there is a case of an officer whose grade is not reduced, but whose salary is reduced on account of the fact that he is not found to be as efficient as the responsibilities of the post require, the deduction shall not come into existence unless the period of notice that his service requires shall be fulfilled. Now, Sir, the object of that provision is really to give him one month’s notice. The completed or simplified procedure would be to give him a legal notice and to say. “We are not prepared to pay you the same salary that we paid before ; if you like, continue on the new basis ; if you do not like it, discontinue and go out of service”. Instead of having that elongated process of two equations, notice and reply, offer and rejection, we have combined the