"Principle Of No Work No Pay Is Not Absolute"- Orissa HC Directs Authorities To Pay Dues Of Employee Unlawfully Prevented From Work
The Orissa High Court has held that the petitioner could not have been deprived of his legitimate dues for the period during which he was wrongfully refused employment as the principle of ‘No Work No Pay' was not absolute.
The Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed that “Law is well settled that where an employee is willing to work but is prevented by the employer to do so unlawfully, he cannot be blamed much less denied his legitimate benefits such as salary etc. by invoking the principle of no work no pay.”
Advocate P.K. Mishra appeared for the petitioner and Additional Standing Counsel P.K. Panda appeared for the opposite parties.
In this case, the petitioner had prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the salaries of the petitioner for the period in question.
- The petitioner herein was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Labanya Devi Ucha Vidyapitha, Sanatara. He was a trained Arts graduate and was appointed to the same post of the managing committee.
- The dispute was regarding the receiving of grant-in-aid by the petitioner for which the petitioner had approached the High Court and the High Court ordered that the petitioner's case for the grant was to be considered afresh by the authorities.
- However, due to non-action of the authorities to dispose of the petitioner’s representation, the petitioner approached the Court again.
- The opposite party at that time contended that the appointment of the Petitioner was against a non-sanctioned post beyond the yardstick during 1994 without following rules and in the meantime the post of TGT Arts had been abolished.
- This order of opposite party was quashed and the petitioner was ordered to be treated as an approved staff of the school and that all the consequential benefits should be paid.
- The headmaster of the school informed the Director of School that the petitioner had not attended the school from October 27, 2010, to October 31, 2015 without any intimation.
The Counsel for the petitioner contended that he was prevented from discharging his duties by the school authorities. The petitioner never remained away from the work out of his own volition.
The Court noted that according to the headmaster’s letter regarding the petitioner’s absence for the period in question, the petitioner was never terminated from service nor was allowed to work. Therefore, there was no way by which the petitioner could be deprived of his legitimate dues for the period during which he was wrongfully refused the employment.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the authorities were directed to release all admissible dues in favour of the petitioner.
Cause Title- Partha Sarathi Dash v. State of Odisha and others