“No Work, No Pay” will not apply to employees who were willing to work...
Ruling on ‘no work, no pay’ principle
The principle of ‘no work, no pay’ will not apply to employees who were
willing to work but not allowed to work by the employers despite valid
judicial orders in favour of the workers, the Madras High Court Bench in
Madurai has held.
Justice S. Manikumar passed the ruling while dismissing a writ petition
filed by Madurai Municipal Corporation in 2004 challenging an award
passed by a labour court in 1999 to reinstate a sanitary worker who was
dismissed from service in 1995 for unauthorised absence from duty.
Pointing out that the sanitary worker S. Mariappan was reinstated only
in 2007, without prejudice to the outcome of the present writ petition,
despite the order passed by the labour court, the judge said that he was
entitled to back-wages from 1999 to 2007. He could also not be
penalised or denied wages for the fault of the Corporation in not
reinstating him in service and providing work, the judge added.
Delving into the history of the case, he said that the sanitary worker
was accused of not attending duty since June 1, 1990 without any
intimation or a reasonable cause. A charge memo was issued to him on
December 31, 1992 .
There were certain defects in the memo. Therefore, another charge memo
was issued on December 29, 1994. The worker submitted his explanation
and claimed to have been suffering from jaundice. He also produced
medical records to substantiate his claim. However, he was held guilty
in the domestic enquiry and dismissed from service. The dismissal order
was challenged in the labour court on many grounds including violation
of principles of natural justice.
The labour court, after considering the applicant’s good record of
service, condoned his solitary misconduct of unauthorised absence and
ordered reinstatement without back-wages and hence the present case. Mr.
Justice Manikumar said that the Corporation, which had accused its
worker of absenting without a reasonable cause, itself was guilty of
dragging on the issue for years together. The judge pointed out that
even the disciplinary action was initiated after a delay of four years.
Further, the corporation had filed the present writ petition after an
unexplained delay of five years from the date of the award passed by the
labour court. The worker was reinstated in service only on August 8,
2007 without prejudice to the outcome of the writ petition which ended
up in dismissal now.
[http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/article3900256.ece]
