CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. SIRAJ UDDIN KHAN
Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan & Navin Sinha
Facts:
In the present case the respondent was appointed by the Appellant company for the post of Assistant/typist. The respondent was transferred from Allahabad branch of the company to Juanpur branch in pursuance of office order. However the respondent was absent from his office for straight 4 months and continued to be absent from work until 2012. Several charge sheets were issued to the respondent, Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated against the respondent and an order of reduction of basic pay was passed in 2009 under section 23(a) of The General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975. Set of petitions were filed by the respondent in the high court against the orders passed by the Committee. Allahabad High Court passed an order directing the Appelant to pay back wages with interest. The order passed by Allahabad High Court was challenged by the appellant in the hon’ble Supreme Court.
Contentions:
Appellant:
Appellant submitted that the High Court committed error in directing for payment of salary after 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012, whereas the Respondent absented from work during the period and was clearly not entitled for payment of salary on the principle of "No Work No Pay".
Respondent:
The Respondent contended that charge sheet alleging unauthorized absence for 663 days was never served on the Respondent. Respondent prayed that he was entitled for salary since his dismissal order dated 26.06.2012 was set aside on 29.05.2015, against which special leave petition filed by the company had been dismissed by this Court on 18.09.2015
Findings:
The Hon’ble Supreme court referred two judgments and clearly concluded -
- If a person was absent from work without authorized leave or valid justification, he would not be eligible for wages for that period.
- Where an employer has restrained the employee from working, the employer cannot plead ‘no work no pay’, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ applies only in instances where the employee has voluntarily absented himself from work, and not where the employer has restrained the employee from attending work.
In the present case the respondent was not restrained from his duty by any means the responded continued to be absent from work voluntarily.
