HC: ‘No work no pay’ can’t apply if staff wants to work but not allowed

HC: ‘No work no pay’ can’t apply if staff wants to work but not allowed

Ajay.Sura@timesgroup.com

Chandigarh: 24.06.2020

The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that in a case an employee was willing to work but was deprived by the employer, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ would not apply and the employer would be liable to pay for the period which the employee remained out of work.

Justice Ritu Bahri of the high court passed the order as she directed the Haryana government to pay salary of 13 years to an employee who was dismissed from service on disciplinary grounds but reinstated on directions of the state governor.

Petitioner Ishwar Singh had moved the high court for release of his salary for the period between April 7, 2001 and April 7, 2014 during which he was kept from his duties. The petitioner was appointed in the prisons department as clerk in 1987 on ad hoc basis and in 1991his services were regularised.

The petitioner was suspended in February 2002 for gross negligence towards his duty after he was absent from duty on five occasions. Thereafter he was charge-sheeted and finally dismissed on September 9, 2003. He filed an appeal against his dismissal, which was rejected in February 2010. He then filed a memorial to the Haryana governor, which was accepted and the governor ordered his reinstatement in July 2014.

The governor observed that apparently the petitioner was dismissed from service with malafide intention to harass and harm.

MOOT POINT

In his plea before the high court, seeking salary for this 13-year period, the petitioner contended that once the Haryana governor was satisfied that it was a case of mala fide intention to harass and harm him, the state government ought to have released his salary.

‘No work no pay’: Case of sheer intimidation, says HC

It seems to be a case of sheer intimidation against a subordinate employee by a senior officer. Apparently, someone in an influential position in the department manipulated the things against him for reasons best known to them. But this is a serious matter which calls for a thorough probe by the administrative department. Therefore, there does not seem to be any justification in the punishment of dismissal on the charge of willful absence from duty for two days,” the governor had observed while reinstating the petitioner.

In compliance of the governor’s order, he was taken back in the service and even promoted to the post of accountant. However, he was not paid for the period of 13 years during which he remained out of service.

In his plea before the high court, the petitioner argued that the principle of ‘no work no pay’ could not be applied in this case as it covers the issue of work being offered but employee not performing.

The argument of the state government was that even while accepting the petitioner’s appeal, the governor had made it clear that he will not be entitled to any remuneration for the period when he actually did not perform any duty.

After hearing all the parties and examining various Supreme Court decisions, the high court observed that while allowing the memorial appeal of the petitioner, it has been categorically observed by the governor that someone in an influential position in the department had manipulated things against the petitioner.

“Thus, the petitioner was always ready and willing to work but was deprived by the respondents (state). Thus, the principal of ‘no work no pay’ cannot be invoked. The respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from April 2001 to April 2014. The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits,” ordered the HC.