Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by United India Insurance Company against a High Court order directing payment of salary to the respondent, Siraj Uddin Khan, for the period from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012. The respondent was appointed as an assistant/typist and was transferred from Allahabad to Jaunpur in 2006. He did not join the new post and remained absent from 02.02.2007. A charge sheet was issued for unauthorized absence, leading to a punishment of reduction in basic pay by two steps on 14.05.2009. Subsequently, a second charge sheet for 663 days of absence was issued, and an ex-parte inquiry resulted in termination of services on 26.06.2012, after the respondent had retired on 20.06.2012. The respondent challenged both orders in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge set aside the termination order on grounds of non-service of charge sheet and the fact that the respondent had already retired, but upheld the punishment order of 14.05.2009 as barred by laches. The Division Bench, in special appeal, set aside the punishment order of 14.05.2009 and directed consequential benefits. The respondent then filed another writ petition seeking salary for the period from January 2007 to June 2012. The High Court partly allowed the petition, directing payment of salary from 02.02.2007 to 14.05.2009 with 18% interest, and also from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012 with 18% interest. The appellant challenged only the direction for salary after 14.05.2009. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not entitled to salary for the period after 14.05.2009 because he did not work during that period and the setting aside of the termination order did not automatically entitle him to back wages. The principle of 'No Work No Pay' applied, and the respondent failed to show that he was willing to work but was prevented by the employer. The Court set aside the High Court's direction for salary from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012, but upheld the direction for salary from 02.02.2007 to 14.05.2009 as it was not challenged.
Headnote
A) Service Law - No Work No Pay - Principle of 'No Work No Pay' - The principle that an employee who does not work is not entitled to salary applies even when a termination order is set aside, unless the employee was willing to work but was prevented by the employer. (Paras 10-12) B) Service Law - Consequential Benefits - Setting Aside of Termination Order - Setting aside of a termination order does not automatically entitle the employee to back wages; the employee must show that he was ready and willing to work. (Paras 10-12) C) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Natural Justice - A termination order passed without proper service of charge sheet is vitiated for violation of natural justice. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to salary for the period from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012 when he was absent from work and the termination order was set aside on procedural grounds.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. The direction of the High Court for payment of salary from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012 was set aside. The direction for payment of salary from 02.02.2007 to 14.05.2009 was upheld as not challenged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- No Work No Pay
- Consequential Benefits
- Service Law
- Natural Justice
- Disciplinary Proceedings
