Srinagar, Apr 25: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has held that an employee cannot be denied salary on the “principle of no work no pay” for any act or fault on the part of the employer even as it said the principle holds good only when the employee remains out of service on his own.
“Principle of no work no pay can be put in to operation when the employee remains out of service because of his own act, omission or fault but not when an employee is kept away from the work by any act or omission on the part of the employer,” a bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Muhammad Yousuf Wani said. The Court said this while dismissing a related appeal filed by J&K Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation. In its appeal against the single judge’s verdict, the corporation had challenged the decision on the sole ground that the employees in question had not worked for the period for which they had claimed salary, therefore, the corporation could not be directed to pay the same to them.
The Corporation’s contention was that the settled law is that no one can claim wages for the period, for which he remains absent without leave or justification. The case pertained to employees who had initially opted for voluntary retirement but resumed service after they were not paid benefits under the VRS scheme.
In his counter argument, counsel for the aggrieved employees argued that the Corporation was under an obligation to pay voluntary retirement benefits to the employees within sixty days, saying when the same were not paid, the employees preferred a petition before the court. With the intervention of the court, the employees were allowed to resume their duties, which they did and thereafter they sought release of their salary for the intervening period in their favour along with interest, he said. “It was only because of the corporation’s false promise that the employees accepted the voluntary retirement offer,” the counsel said. Furthermore, the counsel contended that the employees remained out of service only because of the corporation, as such, he said, the corporation could not claim that the employees did not perform any work.
