JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - In each of these two writ petitions a Trade Union figures as petitioner No. 1 while other petitioners are employees of New Bank of India. The Trade Unions who are the petitioners in the two petitions are different, and the employees are also different. Their grievance is however similar. As such, arguments were heard in both the cases together and they may conveniently be disposed of by a common Judgment. 2. According to the authorities of the Bank some incidents took place during office hours on 13-9-84, 14-9-84 and 15-1-85 involving different officers and other ranks of employees. The employees are alleged to have indulged III unruly demonstration during office hours and coerced and intimidated their superior officers. Accordingly, orders have been passed for deduction of one day's salary on the principle of "no work, no pay" for the respective days on which the employees are said to have participated in these incidents. This has been done on the strength of a Bank circular D/- 18-8-77 which is annexure-5 in writ petition No. 1865 of 1985. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that this circular is violative of fundamental right of the employees to hold demonstration and should therefore be struck down. The correctness of the allegations made in the Impugned orders of deductions of salary against the employees concerned has also been challenged. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. If the allegations, as made, be true then the conduct of the employees involved would hardly be defensible. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this Court need not go into the factual correctness of the allegations. Their contention is that the circular itself being void, and further no opportunity of hearing having been given before the impugned orders were passed the orders should be struck down, 6. So far as the. constitutionality of the Circular D/- 18-8-77 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention to the relevant terms of the circular which are as follows :- You are once again advised that in all cases where the members of the staff resort to mass deputations, demonstrations, strikes etc. So far as the. constitutionality of the Circular D/- 18-8-77 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention to the relevant terms of the circular which are as follows :- You are once again advised that in all cases where the members of the staff resort to mass deputations, demonstrations, strikes etc. during the normal working hours, you will maintain proper records in respect of such absence/abstention from duty, display a notice deduct pro rata wages for the period of absence/abstention out of the salary of the month concerned and in case the same has already been paid then from the salary of the succeeding month. Needless to add that you will also send an intimation to the Asstt Labour Commissioner (Central) of your area. Please note that these are standing instructions and unless advised to the contrary in writing, you shall continue to follow these instructions on the principle of `No Work, No Pay' without fail. For ready reference and convenience, gist of the guidelines on `No Work, No Pay' is given hereunder. (I) Identifying No Work Situation : (i)(a) This includes, by way of example, absence/abstention from work for strikes, demonstrations or for any other form of agitation whether inside or outside the employee's own bank or at any other place, including another bank. (b) Absence may be for any period. It may be for as long as 6 hours, or as short as 5 minutes. In any case, it is to be regarded as `no work' for that period. 7. It has been contended that the cls. (a) and (b), quoted above, show that all forms of demonstration and agitation are indirectly banned. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in O.K. Ghosh v. E. X. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812 paras 6 and 7, Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166 and also on B. Manmohan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 Mys 261. In these decisions it was held that if a conduct rule is framed banning any type of demonstration or agitation or criticism of the authorities then it would be violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art 19(l)(a) of the Constitution. In the instant case however, no action is being taken merely for participation in a demonstration or agitation. Action is being taken merely for absence from work during the working hours. In the instant case however, no action is being taken merely for participation in a demonstration or agitation. Action is being taken merely for absence from work during the working hours. One may have fundamental rights of doing many things, but it does not follow that those things can be done by him during the working hours for which payment is to be made to him. Thus these decisions are clearly distinguishable as they do not deal with the right of the employer not to pay an employee for any period during which no work is done. What has been laid down in the circular is that if normal working hours spent in demonstration or agitation caused any absence or abstention from duty when wages may be deducted for the absence or abstention. This provision thus does not violate any fundamental right. 8. In this view of the matter it is not necessary for us to go into the correctness of the allegations made by the authorities against the individual employee concerned. It is open to the employees to represent to the authorities in respect of their individual cases. If any of them was not really absent and had not taken part in the demonstration or agitation then the orders may be withdrawn either by the authorities who issued them, or by the higher authorities. It is also open to the employees concerned to take proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act in respect of unlawful deduction from their wages, or in the case of any employee who was not covered by that Act, to resort to other legal remedies. As the question of actual particpation of individual employee may still be agitated before the departmental authorities, or other authorities as indicated above, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the facts. 9. Neither the impugned orders against individual employees, nor the impugned circular, nor the writ petitions refer to any order regarding break in service as a consequence of the allegedly unauthorised absence. Nothing was said in arguments either, to suggest that the order would involve any break in service of the employees concerned. If any such consequence be intended then it is expeced that due opportunity will be given to the employees concerned, particularly those who dispute their absence or abstention from work and participation on the relevant date and the relevant time. 10. If any such consequence be intended then it is expeced that due opportunity will be given to the employees concerned, particularly those who dispute their absence or abstention from work and participation on the relevant date and the relevant time. 10. An employee gets his salary for the days he attends to this work or is absent on authorised leave, and not for other days on which he fails to work. Likewise, a college student gets credit for attendance on the days he attends his lectures and not for days of absence. We do not think the principle of audi alteram partem can be stretched even to marking an employee or a student absent although as an automatic consequence the employee may lose his wages for the day or the student may ultimately find his attendance short of the requisite minimum to entitle him to appear at the final examination. We have already, observed above that if graver consequences be intended then due opportunity will be given to those disputing their absence. Further, those who dispute their presence at the incidents in question may make representations in that behalf and such representations will be duly considered by the competent authorities. To stretch the rules of natural justice any further will not be practical or reasonable. 11. Subject to above the Writ Petitions are dismissed in limine.